3 years, one hundred miles of wall,, zero paid by mexico.

calls for a plaque!!!

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/...order-wall

The singular focus on the wall is one place where I disagree with Donald Trump. I would have wanted him to use the wall as a bargaining chip to trade for a truly comprehensive immigration system, including increased legal immigration on a merit-based system, a physical barrier where that is the best way to accomplish a secure border, electronic surveillance for the rest of the border, and increased funding for border security.

Portion of US border wall in California falls over in high winds and lands on Mexican side

As a result of wind gusts peaking around 37-mph. Apparently the cement had not cured before the wind gusts.

(01-30-2020 07:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The singular focus on the wall is one place where I disagree with Donald Trump. I would have wanted him to use the wall as a bargaining chip to trade for a truly comprehensive immigration system, including increased legal immigration on a merit-based system, a physical barrier where that is the best way to accomplish a secure border, electronic surveillance for the rest of the border, and increased funding for border security.

Agree.

Were there not walls in place along portions of the border before 1-20-17?

A wall by itself is useless, but walls in strategic places manned by patrols can be very effective. Ask any prison warden.

(01-30-2020 07:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The singular focus on the wall is one place where I disagree with Donald Trump. I would have wanted him to use the wall as a bargaining chip to trade for a truly comprehensive immigration system, including increased legal immigration on a merit-based system, a physical barrier where that is the best way to accomplish a secure border, electronic surveillance for the rest of the border, and increased funding for border security.

how do you use something you dont have as bargaining chip?

you want him to say "ok ok ok ok democrats, heres the deal,, i wont have mexico build this big beautiful wall if you give me all this other stuff"
hahahahahahahaha!!!

(01-30-2020 08:52 PM)Foff Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 07:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The singular focus on the wall is one place where I disagree with Donald Trump. I would have wanted him to use the wall as a bargaining chip to trade for a truly comprehensive immigration system, including increased legal immigration on a merit-based system, a physical barrier where that is the best way to accomplish a secure border, electronic surveillance for the rest of the border, and increased funding for border security.

how do you use something you dont have as bargaining chip?

You use what you can. I'd rather have a comprehensive immigration policy that encouraged legal immigration based on merit, and prevented illegal immigration, than just to build a wall and be done with it.

I realize that the left does not want a rational immigration policy. Leftists see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of future leftist voters.

(01-30-2020 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 08:52 PM)Foff Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 07:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The singular focus on the wall is one place where I disagree with Donald Trump. I would have wanted him to use the wall as a bargaining chip to trade for a truly comprehensive immigration system, including increased legal immigration on a merit-based system, a physical barrier where that is the best way to accomplish a secure border, electronic surveillance for the rest of the border, and increased funding for border security.

how do you use something you dont have as bargaining chip?

You use what you can. I'd rather have a comprehensive immigration policy that encouraged legal immigration based on merit, and prevented illegal immigration, than just to build a wall and be done with it.

I realize that the left does not want a rational immigration policy. Leftists see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of future leftist voters.

Iran used nukes they don't have pretty effectively against a weak negotiator.

(01-30-2020 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I realize that the left does not want a rational immigration policy. Leftists see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of future leftist voters.

(01-31-2020 10:28 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I realize that the left does not want a rational immigration policy. Leftists see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of future leftist voters.

Well, that's polite, and really furthers a calm discussion of the issue.

(01-31-2020 10:28 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I realize that the left does not want a rational immigration policy. Leftists see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of future leftist voters.

Before you go doing stuff like that, why don't you first explain what policies they have pursued that deviate from that objective.

Catch and release?
Sanctuary cities?
Abolishing ICE?
Adding them to the welfare rolls?
Giving non-citizens the vote?

(01-31-2020 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 10:28 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I realize that the left does not want a rational immigration policy. Leftists see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of future leftist voters.

Well, that's polite, and really furthers a calm discussion of the issue.

Touche! My "comment" was about your 2nd sentence, not your 1st, as I already explained that I thought this idea was a right-wing fever dream in response to some posts by OO on the topic. I also explained to him why I thought it was a crazy belief that conservatives had about democrats and I think prompted one of my many admonitions about how the conservatives on this board do a better job of explaining their own beliefs than they do explaining the beliefs of most democrats/progressives/liberals. Also, knowing that you don't generally support the wall and then throwing this comment out there struck a cord. Am I not allowed to be "direct" like tanq? Will it be OK if I move to west texas and then post the same thing? (I kid ... sort of)

Catch and release - a significant majority of immigrants here illegally and those here making asylum claims show up for their hearings. Dems don't support this for immigrants implicated in committing other crimes. I don't like the alternative of building even more prisons or deporting people without due process who have made a claim to stay in the USA.

Sanctuary cities - these localities often give very rational reasons for this policy, including not wanting to deter immigrants from reporting crimes or working with local police, no wanting to give criminals free reign to commit crimes against immigrants knowing that immigrants will not be able to go to local police without being themselves arrested, desire to focus local resources on crimes that are harming the community, and desire for their local law enforcement to avoid racial profiling. Police don't ticket or arrest everyone who speeds or makes a rolling stop. They have a lot of discretion in their jobs which can be both a good thing and a bad thing, depending on how that discretion is exercised. Not all democrats want sanctuary cities.

Abolishing ICE - The democrats talking about abolishing ICE are not arguing that there should be zero immigration enforcement at the border. They believe ICE has issues and that hitting a reset by replacing ICE with a new agency that has similar functions but new leadership, structure, and mission statement can do the same job in a more humane way. ICE was formed in 2002 and many agencies have been disbanded over the years.

Adding them to the welfare rolls - I haven't seen this one. Citation to any prominent democrats advocating this?

Giving non-citizens the vote - I discussed this with OO. The instances of this are exceptionally limited and isn't something I have seen any prominent democrats doing at the state or national level (though perhaps someone who conservatives obsessive over like AOC has done so?). You probably believe this is a slippery slope, but there really isn't any evidence to support that since this has been happening in some local communities for some local elections for a long time.

By and large Big, you aren't really disputing what he said... you're merely downplaying the impact

MOST show up, but something around 1/3 don't.
While sanctuary cities may be able to make an argument, that doesn't mean that a better solution wouldn't be for the feds to supplement their activities. As you note, they are often victims... meaning police resources are needed to protect them that wouldn't be needed if they weren't here at all. It's a rational debate, but it's not indisputable

As for welfare... Jul 10, 2019 - California has become the first state in the country to offer government-subsidized health benefits to young adults living in the U.S. illegally. ... Gavin Newsom on Tuesday extends coverage to low-income, undocumented adults ages 25 and younger for the state's Medicaid program.

Perhaps the point owl is making though is that undocumented immigrants who have a child here, the child gets free healthcare and education... which of course is good for the parents as well.

The point Owl seems to be making is that all these policies endear illegal aliens to the left, and nothing you've said really refutes this.

(01-31-2020 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Perhaps the point owl is making though is that undocumented immigrants who have a child here, the child gets free healthcare and education... which of course is good for the parents as well.

The point Owl seems to be making is that all these policies endear illegal aliens to the left, and nothing you've said really refutes this.

Respectfully, 69/70/75 made his own point, so no need for you or me to interpret it. He wrote "Leftists see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of future leftist voters." That is what I initially responded to with my . I think that is silly talk.

The idea that modern democratic policies treat immigrants and asylum seekers more humanely and with more compassion than modern conservative policies does not mean democrats support those policies to "see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of future leftist voters."

We can have a reasonable discussion about the specifics of immigration reform. I have no doubt that 69/70/75 and myself could hammer out an agreement that would probably pass with a majority in the House and Senate (not that McConnell would bring it to the floor for a vote or that Trump would approve it). But I wouldn't be arguing for my side because it would encourage a steady stream of illegal immigrants who may eventually become voters who may eventually support democrats. I would do it because I believed it was best for the country.

(01-31-2020 02:00 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  As for welfare... Jul 10, 2019 - California has become the first state in the country to offer government-subsidized health benefits to young adults living in the U.S. illegally. ... Gavin Newsom on Tuesday extends coverage to low-income, undocumented adults ages 25 and younger for the state's Medicaid program.

You probably know this better than me, but emergency rooms cannot turn away patients, including illegal immigrants. Physicians would likely violate their hippocratic oath if they did so for a patient that needed care. So I think the democratic argument is that it is cheaper for illegal immigrants to receive normal healthcare than have them showing up at the ER over and over. And offering preventative care can also help avoid the spread of disease to both US citizens and within immigrant communities. If that is the case, it seems crazy that a conservative would argue that we should spend more money to treat illigal immigrants at the ER that would result in more public health risk to everyone.

I don't really think of public education as "welfare" so I don't consider that to be something within the ambit of 69/70/75's question about adding them to the "welfare rolls".

(01-31-2020 11:50 AM)mrbig Wrote:  Catch and release - a significant majority of immigrants here illegally and those here making asylum claims show up for their hearings.

Which means that a substantial minority don't.

Quote:Sanctuary cities - these localities often give very rational reasons for this policy, including not wanting to deter immigrants from reporting crimes or working with local police, no wanting to give criminals free reign to commit crimes against immigrants knowing that immigrants will not be able to go to local police without being themselves arrested, desire to focus local resources on crimes that are harming the community, and desire for their local law enforcement to avoid racial profiling.

They give lots of rationalizations. But the intent is clear.

Quote:Abolishing ICE - The democrats talking about abolishing ICE are not arguing that there should be zero immigration enforcement at the border.

I'm not seeing that. Most of what I've read says they need to go away and don't propose any replacement.

Quote:Adding them to the welfare rolls - I haven't seen this one. Citation to any prominent democrats advocating this?

Try

https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Hou...e-Programs

or

https://www.investors.com/politics/edito...nsus-data/

or

http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capolit...data-show/

Quote:Giving non-citizens the vote - I discussed this with OO. The instances of this are exceptionally limited and isn't something I have seen any prominent democrats doing at the state or national level (though perhaps someone who conservatives obsessive over like AOC has done so?). You probably believe this is a slippery slope, but there really isn't any evidence to support that since this has been happening in some local communities for some local elections for a long time.

For now they are limited. But the trend is clearly in one direction, and there is no indication of a reversal. We've gone from none to some. The next logical step is going from some to some more.

Bottom line: You can rationalize each of these policies, and others. But my point is that they all trend in the same direction, and as far as I know there are none trending the other way. If you know some that are, please let me know. Otherwise, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

(01-31-2020 11:50 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 10:34 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 10:28 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I realize that the left does not want a rational immigration policy. Leftists see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of future leftist voters.

Well, that's polite, and really furthers a calm discussion of the issue.

Touche! My "comment" was about your 2nd sentence, not your 1st, as I already explained that I thought this idea was a right-wing fever dream in response to some posts by OO on the topic. I also explained to him why I thought it was a crazy belief that conservatives had about democrats and I think prompted one of my many admonitions about how the conservatives on this board do a better job of explaining their own beliefs than they do explaining the beliefs of most democrats/progressives/liberals. Also, knowing that you don't generally support the wall and then throwing this comment out there struck a cord. Am I not allowed to be "direct" like tanq? Will it be OK if I move to west texas and then post the same thing? (I kid ... sort of)

Catch and release - a significant majority of immigrants here illegally and those here making asylum claims show up for their hearings. Dems don't support this for immigrants implicated in committing other crimes. I don't like the alternative of building even more prisons or deporting people without due process who have made a claim to stay in the USA.

But yet it is very public and very well known that the 'asylum process' really isnt --- it is at this point a very well publicized 'out' from the 'less than 24 hour delay between catch and bus back'.

If one wants to tighten up the asylum avenue where it actually works as intended --- as opposed to the generic 'ring this bell for a stay of bus trip' -- I might actually agree with some of your statement.

Quote:Sanctuary cities - these localities often give very rational reasons for this policy, including not wanting to deter immigrants from reporting crimes or working with local police, no wanting to give criminals free reign to commit crimes against immigrants knowing that immigrants will not be able to go to local police without being themselves arrested, desire to focus local resources on crimes that are harming the community, and desire for their local law enforcement to avoid racial profiling. Police don't ticket or arrest everyone who speeds or makes a rolling stop. They have a lot of discretion in their jobs which can be both a good thing and a bad thing, depending on how that discretion is exercised. Not all democrats want sanctuary cities.

You only touch a little bit of the issue here, Big. Look, even I support the argument that local police dont want to shut down avenues of investigation, and thus rarely make an arrest on the basis of a 'migra' charge sua sponte. I can see the efficacy of that.

But the 'sanctuary city' runs *much deeper* -- to the point of local police and courts ignoring 'please detain this guy *you* arrested' for ICE, to in one particular instance, a judge stalling ICE agents at the court while telling the bailiff of an accused felon to direct the subject of the detainer request to a side door.

So please dont do the 'scratch the surface' and address the 'only the nice things that pretty much a vast majority agree' when the real issue is the utter refusal of many local jurisdictions to even detain accused felons by ICE request; sometimes even when the subject has other US convictions.

(01-31-2020 11:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 10:28 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I realize that the left does not want a rational immigration policy. Leftists see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of future leftist voters.

Before you go doing stuff like that, why don't you first explain what policies they have pursued that deviate from that objective.

Catch and release?
Sanctuary cities?
Abolishing ICE?
Adding them to the welfare rolls?
Giving non-citizens the vote?

I disagree with this, but before I do any research on it - you need to break down the time frame you're talking about when Democrats had control of the Presidency and House and Senate, and were in a position to make any meaningful legislative changes.

As long as you continue to make this claim (and you post this or something similar to this quite often - it gets monotonous), you need to realize that Trump's immigration policies are also political in nature. If Democrats are in favor of opening the borders to get more votes, Trump closing them is also geared to both lower the potential new Democratic votes (your theory, not mine), and also rally his base at the same time.

The White House announced six new countries on its travel ban yesterday (wasn't a total ban, but it was pretty strict at the same time). The one truly significant one on the list was Nigeria. Only allowing temporary visas for people from Nigeria to the U.S. could have a big impact in November. As you probably see first-hand, there are a ton of Nigerians in the United States, and I can't imagine they are going to be happy with this news.

(02-01-2020 07:44 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 11:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-31-2020 10:28 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I realize that the left does not want a rational immigration policy. Leftists see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of future leftist voters.

Before you go doing stuff like that, why don't you first explain what policies they have pursued that deviate from that objective.

Catch and release?
Sanctuary cities?
Abolishing ICE?
Adding them to the welfare rolls?
Giving non-citizens the vote?

I disagree with this, but before I do any research on it - you need to break down the time frame you're talking about when Democrats had control of the Presidency and House and Senate, and were in a position to make any meaningful legislative changes.

As long as you continue to make this claim (and you post this or something similar to this quite often - it gets monotonous), you need to realize that Trump's immigration policies are also political in nature. If Democrats are in favor of opening the borders to get more votes, Trump closing them is also geared to both lower the potential new Democratic votes (your theory, not mine), and also rally his base at the same time.

The White House announced six new countries on its travel ban yesterday (wasn't a total ban, but it was pretty strict at the same time). The one truly significant one on the list was Nigeria. Only allowing temporary visas for people from Nigeria to the U.S. could have a big impact in November. As you probably see first-hand, there are a ton of Nigerians in the United States, and I can't imagine they are going to be happy with this news.

What do things like sanctuary cities have to do with control of Congress?

These are declared by the city, not Congress.

(01-30-2020 10:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 08:52 PM)Foff Wrote:  

(01-30-2020 07:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The singular focus on the wall is one place where I disagree with Donald Trump. I would have wanted him to use the wall as a bargaining chip to trade for a truly comprehensive immigration system, including increased legal immigration on a merit-based system, a physical barrier where that is the best way to accomplish a secure border, electronic surveillance for the rest of the border, and increased funding for border security.

how do you use something you dont have as bargaining chip?

You use what you can. I'd rather have a comprehensive immigration policy that encouraged legal immigration based on merit, and prevented illegal immigration, than just to build a wall and be done with it.

I realize that the left does not want a rational immigration policy. Leftists see a steady stream of illegal immigrants as steady supply of future leftist voters.

so no seriously, how could he have possibly used wall as a bargaining chip? how would that bargain have gone?? what would he offer what would he ask?

((its like saying 'i wouldve wanted him to repeal obamacare completely'. well no crap thats what you want dude. if wishes were horses....))

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/36-imm...li=BBnbcA1