(01-27-2019 11:55 AM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 09:43 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I'm not a fan of Coulter, but she isn't wrong on this. The Republicans had both houses for 2 years, and Trump couldn't get it through. That is on the Republicans. When she says the GOP doesn't really have an interest in securing the boarder, I agree with her. They had the votes to do it, but didn't. Now Trump has blinked, and conceded on the wall to Pelosi. Trump will probably not get anything done for the next two years, and spend most of his time defending himself from dim house investigations. He has angered a very large portion of his base, and they are actively looking for a real leader with spine. His chances of being reelected in 2020 are diminishing, and he only has himself to blame.

The bottom line is that democrats see illegals as a steady stream of future democrat votes, and they do not want to do anything to interrupt that stream. I do not expect anything even remotely approaching good faith negotiation on the part of democrats in the next 3 weeks. I hope they surprise me.
My problems with Trump/Republicans are:
1) I don't think the wall is the right solution. It may have symbolic value, but that's about it. I think Will Hurd's SMART Wall combination of barrier, technology, manpower, and equipment would be far more cost-effective, but I don't see how to get there.
2) Republican congressional "leadership" couldn't lead a sex addict to a whorehouse. I'll give Ryan a bit of a pass because he didn't want the job, but Boehner and McConnell have been about as useless as tits on a boar hog.

You said "the wall". I wonder of you are referring to an imaginary wall across the entire southern boarder. I find it hard to believe any every through that was really what this was about. The idea all along has been walls in certain key areas, making up a tiny percentage of the actual boarder.
Its seems silly to argue walls in some areas are not effective, That goes against all evidence and history. That does not mean its a 100% deterrent, its clearly not. But its does have a tremendous impact.
I think most who support a wall fully agree its about some physical barrier combined with technology, manpower and other things. I doubt anyone thinks its just about a wall and that fixes all.
Overall I fully agree with your post though.

I think Trump started out, or it least gave his supporters the impression that the was starting out, with a single physical wall the length of the border. I think he has come to understand that is not the most effective or cost-efficient way to go, but I'm not sure his supporters are there.

I think the combination of wall, technology, equipment, and manpower makes the most sense. We know the places that they are crossing now. Add barriers there. When they move elsewhere, add wall there. In Big Bend, with hundreds or thousands of feet of sheer cliff on either side of the river, I doubt we will ever need wall. Hell, as fares I'm concerned, anybody wo could make it through that deserves be citizen.

I just don't think democrats will negotiate in good faith in the next 3 weeks, or ever, on this issue because they see a steady stream of illegals as a steady stream of future democrat voters, as soon as they can change the laws. They have not negotiated in good faith for 3 decades, since Tip O'Neill reneged on the deal he made with Reagan, so why should they start now?

Here's what I'd do:
1) Do Will Hurd's SMART Wall instead of a single wall.
2) Increase legal immigration on a merit basis, like Canada
3) Guest worker status for illegals already here, including Dreamers; we can't send them back, but we should not reward illegal behavior with citizenship
4) You serve a hitch in the military and get an honorable discharge, you are fast tracked for citizenship
5) End to catch-and-release and sanctuary cities and chain immigration (although relatives do get extra points in a merit system)
6) Revise amnesty rules along lines of Canada's, with no eligibility for amnesty if you cross illegally
7) 30% withholding tax on all funds sent overseas by non-citizens
8) No welfare except emergency medical for illegals
9) A "Marshall Plan" for Mexico and Central America, including a sugar cane ethanol industry and some good governance trip wires; the only way to stop the pressure for illegals to come here is to create viable economies back home
10) Legalization of marijuana and decriminalization of some other drugs, to cut down on the drug flow in order to focus on the immigration problem

I find it somewhat amusing that Trudeau likes to lecture us about immigration, but his own country's immigration policies are in many ways much more restrictive than ours.

(01-27-2019 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Hell, as fares I'm concerned, anybody wo could make it through that deserves be citizen.

I think anyone who walks 1000 miles-plus from Guatemala and Honduras to the Mexico-California border with young children also deserves citizen status.

I'm proud of the fact that my grandparents arrived at Ellis Island (and the Port of Boston on my fathers' side) in the early 20th century when this country was more receptive to the idea of people wanting to come here for a better life and opportunity. Of course that doesn't make me unique - Today, over 100 million Americans—about one-third to 40% of the population of the United States—can trace their ancestry to immigrants who arrived in America at Ellis Island before dispersing to points all over the country. It's a shame that many of those people now feel immigrants are the scourge of society.

(01-27-2019 12:29 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Hell, as fares I'm concerned, anybody wo could make it through that deserves be citizen.

I think anyone who walks 1000 miles-plus from Guatemala and Honduras to the Mexico-California border with young children also deserves citizen status.

I'm proud of the fact that my grandparents arrived at Ellis Island (and the Port of Boston on my fathers' side) in the early 20th century when this country was more receptive to the idea of people wanting to come here for a better life and opportunity. Of course that doesn't make me unique - Today, over 100 million Americans—about one-third to 40% of the population of the United States—can trace their ancestry to immigrants who arrived in America at Ellis Island before dispersing to points all over the country. It's a shame that many of those people now feel immigrants are the scourge of society.

That's an honest opinion. Rare to get that from the left. I think that approach is very detrimental to our lowest income residents and detrimental to our ability to provide services to our citizens, whether it be schools, health care, welfare benefits or police protection.

I believe American immigration policy should be decided by Americans for the benefit of Americans.

(01-27-2019 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Trump started out, or it least gave his supporters that the was starting out, with a single physical wall the length of the border. I think he has come to understand that is not the most effective or cost-efficient way to go, but I'm not sure his supporters are there.

I don't think Trump ever had any intention of a wall across the entire boarder at any time.

He ALWAYS starts off a negation by wildly overreaching or asking way too much, so he can be seen as "compromising" to get to what he actually is trying to achieve.

Its Trump 101 and and centerpiece of "the art of the deal" approach he takes in all negations.

America had many periods where the country was not receptive to immigrants. Basically, whenever there was a flood that overwhelmed the country. In the 1850s the Know Nothings opposed the massive Irish immigration triggered by the potato famine. In the 1880s Chinese immigration was restricted. In the early 1900s, there was a lot of opposition to the flood of immigrants from Eastern Europe and from Mexico escaping the revolution. In the 1920s, immigration was basically shut down.

And your ancestors ALL came in legally. They were screened and tested before they were let off Ellis Island or Angel Island.

These illegals come in, avoiding our laws and our screenings. We still let in a huge number of legal immigrants and temporary workers. We are still far more receptive to immigrants than the vast majority of the first world.

(01-27-2019 12:35 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think Trump started out, or it least gave his supporters that the was starting out, with a single physical wall the length of the border. I think he has come to understand that is not the most effective or cost-efficient way to go, but I'm not sure his supporters are there.

I don't think Trump ever had any intention of a wall across the entire boarder at any time.

He ALWAYS starts off a negation by wildly overreaching or asking way too much, so he can be seen as "compromising" to get to what he actually is trying to achieve.

Its Trump 101 and and centerpiece of "the art of the deal" approach he takes in all negations.

I never believed he wanted a 2500 mile wall. I don't think most of his voters believed that, just like I don't know anyone who actually thought Mexico would directly pay for the wall. That is just the MSM and Democrats' strawman argument. They can't argue against how much sense the wall makes in places, so they argued against something President Trump never proposed.

(01-27-2019 12:29 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 12:17 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Hell, as fares I'm concerned, anybody who could make it through that deserves be citizen.

I think anyone who walks 1000 miles-plus from Guatemala and Honduras to the Mexico-California border with young children also deserves citizen status.

Why? I think anybody who forces young children through such an ordeal is guilty of child abuse. As long as our border remains porous, it will serve as an attractive nuisance to promote more of such abuse.

The museum to the Lech Walesa-led shipyard workers' revolt in Gdansk is a truly amazing experience. Our tour guide, who grew up there in that time frame, pointed out one photo of people waiting in line to buy meat in freezing conditions. Everybody was all bundled up, including many tiny children. We asked why they would expose children to such weather. She replied that meat was handed out on a per capita basis, counting the number that actually showed, so bringing your kids meant more meat. As long as children get you in, people will show up with children, regardless of whose children they are or what they did to get them.

Totally off-topic, but such a great story that I have to include it. Our guide had been a university student during the workers' riots. She stopped us at one photo that had been made into a mural, and said, "Now I was too afraid to join this riot, so I stayed home. But this guy here was my history professor, and this guy sat behind me in economics, sand one of my best friends dated that guy." Really brought it home.

Quote:I'm proud of the fact that my grandparents arrived at Ellis Island (and the Port of Boston on my fathers' side) in the early 20th century when this country was more receptive to the idea of people wanting to come here for a better life and opportunity. Of course that doesn't make me unique - Today, over 100 million Americans—about one-third to 40% of the population of the United States—can trace their ancestry to immigrants who arrived in America at Ellis Island before dispersing to points all over the country. It's a shame that many of those people now feel immigrants are the scourge of society.

They did it legally. So did my cousins' great-great-grands, although they had to be a bit more persistent about it. Legal immigrants are wonderful. Illegal, not so much. Quit conflating the two.

(01-27-2019 10:47 AM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 09:37 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Illegal immigration and the USA's immigration laws since 65' is one her big issues for sure. She does her research. If you have not read Adios America you should. She did a nice column on mass shooters,

Thanks to our Second Amendment, the United States has fewer mass shootings per capita than many other developed countries, including Norway, France, Switzerland, Finland, Belgium and the Czech Republic. (And 98 percent of our mass shootings occur in "gun-free zones.")

But imagine if we could cut our mass shootings in half?

There have been about 34 mass shootings since 2000. Forty-seven percent -- 16 -- were committed by first- and second-generation immigrants, i.e. people who never would have been here but for Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration act.

And the immigrant mass shootings have been some of the most spectacular ones, such as Fort Hood and San Bernardino. Two of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, at Virginia Tech in 2007 and at the Pulse Nightclub in 2016, were committed by first- and second-generation immigrants, i.e., people who were in this country because Teddy was pouting in his room and refused to come out until he got his own legacy.

(Excluded from both lists: the Las Vegas shooting, because law enforcement has released nothing but lies about it, so that shooting remains unclassifiable; family dispute shootings; targeted assassinations of police officers; and shootings on Indian reservations.)

Here's the list of immigrant mass shootings, defined as a shooting at the same general time and location, not during the commission of another crime, that leaves at least four people dead -- i.e. no gangland shootings, no "man kills family, then self" and no drug deals gone bad.

On account of the Rule of Journalism that permits the word "immigrant" to be used only in sentences with the word "valedictorian," you may not have heard of some of these mass shootings at all.

1) Omar Mateen, son of Afghan immigrants, killed 49 people at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando on June 12, 2016.

2) First- and second-generation Pakistani immigrants Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik opened fire at a community center Christmas party in San Bernardino, California, on Dec. 2, 2015, killing 14 people.

3) English immigrant Christopher Harper-Mercer killed 9 people at Umpqua Community College in southwest Oregon on Oct. 1, 2015.

4) Kuwaiti immigrant Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez shot and killed five people in attacks on two military installations in Chattanooga, Tennessee, on July 16, 2015.

5) Second-generation Malaysian immigrant Elliot Rodger killed six people on May 23, 2014, around the campus of the University of California, Santa Barbara.

6) Second-generation immigrant John Zawahri opened fire at his Southern California home and later at the campus of Santa Monica College on June 7, 2013, killing five in all. (The New York Times never mentioned that he was the child of Lebanese immigrants. The Times didn't even mention that his father used to beat up his mother, despite that paper's usual heightened interest in stories about men being mean to women.)

7) Cuban immigrant Pedro Alberto Vargas fatally shot six people in his apartment complex in Hialeah, Florida, on July 26, 2013.

8) Probable Barbadian immigrant Aaron Alexis shot and killed 12 people inside the Washington Navy Yard on Sept. 16, 2013. (See this.)

9) South Korean immigrant One L. Goh opened fire at Oikos University in Oakland, California, killing seven people on April 2, 2012.

10) Mexican immigrant Eduardo Sencion shot up an IHOP in Carson City, Nevada, on Sept. 6, 2011, killing four people -- three National Guardsmen and a 67-year-old woman.

11) Second-generation immigrant Nidal Malik Hasan, son of Palestinian immigrants, killed 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas, on Nov. 5, 2009.

12) Vietnamese immigrant Jiverly Wong shot up the Binghamton, New York, American Civic Association on April 3, 2009, killing 13.

13) Bosnian immigrant Sulejman Talovic fatally shot five people at the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City on Feb. 12, 2007.

14) Seung-Hui Cho, a South Korean immigrant, slaughtered 32 people at Virginia Tech on April 16, 2007.

15) Hmong immigrant Chai Soua Vang killed six hunters in northern Wisconsin on Nov. 21, 2004.

16) Mexican immigrant Salvador Tapia shot up the Windy City Core Supply warehouse in Chicago in 2003, killing six of his former co-workers.

If you missed your favorite immigrant mass shooting, please note that I excluded Jamaican immigrant Colin Ferguson (Long Island Railroad massacre in 1993); Nigerian immigrant Peter Odighizuwa (Appalachian School of Law shooting in 2002); Haitian illegal immigrant Kesler Dufrene (North Miami shooting in 2012); and Nigerian immigrant Henry Williams Obotetukudo (Bronx-Lebanon Hospital shooting in 2017). We are only counting mass shootings since 2000 that left at least four people dead.

First- and second-generation immigrants have committed more than 40 percent of all mass shootings since 2000. I know we've been admitting Third World immigrants at a breakneck pace, but I don't think immigrants make up nearly half the population yet.

Once we exclude the immigrant mass shooters, a clearer pattern emerges. The typical American perpetrator is a young man with paranoid schizophrenia -- or, as we're now euphemistically calling it, "autism" -- probably exacerbated by pot, a deadly combo platter.

An immigration moratorium and widespread deportations would not only cut mass shootings in half, but it would also free up the FBI's time to focus on these delusional young men with the terrifying stare, who hear voices no one else hears.

Young men like Nikolas Cruz.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2018-02-21.html

And??

That seemed to be your brilliant response to me when I mentioned the two young Americans who shot and killed 5 people each within the last week. Both by the way seemed to have nice, normal American-sounding names. That should make you feel a lot better.

Your gif is of someone who isn't American. How un-American of you.

Zephan Xaver is a normal sounding American name?

Coulter's regained her sanity.

Quote:The typical American perpetrator is a young man with paranoid schizophrenia -- or, as we're now euphemistically calling it, "autism" -- probably exacerbated by pot, a deadly combo platter.

Dafaq?

What kind of jelly brain thinks paranoid schizophrenia is autism?

(01-27-2019 10:37 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 09:43 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I'm not a fan of Coulter, but she isn't wrong on this. The Republicans had both houses for 2 years, and Trump couldn't get it through. That is on the Republicans. When she says the GOP doesn't really have an interest in securing the boarder, I agree with her. They had the votes to do it, but didn't.

Now Trump has blinked, and conceded on the wall to Pelosi. Trump will probably not get anything done for the next two years, and spend most of his time defending himself from dim house investigations. He has angered a very large portion of his base, and they are actively looking for a real leader with spine. His chances of being reelected in 2020 are diminishing, and he only has himself to blame.

Well, they did have both houses, but considering that an appropriations bill in the senate needs 60 votes to pass and the Republicans held 51 seats.....they really didn’t have the necessary votes in the Senate “to pass whatever they wanted”. Only if McConnell was willing to nuke the senate rules did the Republicans have enough votes.

You can blame Trump all you want, but the fact is that the Republicans did not have the necessary votes to do whatever they wanted.

Remember when Obamacare was passed and the 60th vote in the Senate was so crucial? That’s the last time either party had the votes to pass whatever they wanted.......

Dims change the rules to pass measures with a simple majority. I see no reason why the Republicans could not have used some obscure procedure to get it done. No, I think the majority of the swamp just doesn't have the will to truly address illegal immigration. Trump seemed dedicated, but has lost his nerve.

(01-27-2019 03:16 PM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 10:37 AM)Crebman Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 09:43 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I'm not a fan of Coulter, but she isn't wrong on this. The Republicans had both houses for 2 years, and Trump couldn't get it through. That is on the Republicans. When she says the GOP doesn't really have an interest in securing the boarder, I agree with her. They had the votes to do it, but didn't.
Now Trump has blinked, and conceded on the wall to Pelosi. Trump will probably not get anything done for the next two years, and spend most of his time defending himself from dim house investigations. He has angered a very large portion of his base, and they are actively looking for a real leader with spine. His chances of being reelected in 2020 are diminishing, and he only has himself to blame.

Well, they did have both houses, but considering that an appropriations bill in the senate needs 60 votes to pass and the Republicans held 51 seats.....they really didn’t have the necessary votes in the Senate “to pass whatever they wanted”. Only if McConnell was willing to nuke the senate rules did the Republicans have enough votes.
You can blame Trump all you want, but the fact is that the Republicans did not have the necessary votes to do whatever they wanted.
Remember when Obamacare was passed and the 60th vote in the Senate was so crucial? That’s the last time either party had the votes to pass whatever they wanted.......

Dims change the rules to pass measures with a simple majority. I see no reason why the Republicans could not have used some obscure procedure to get it done. No, I think the majority of the swamp just doesn't have the will to truly address illegal immigration. Trump seemed dedicated, but has lost his nerve.

McConnell is a milquetoast wuss who couldn't lead a sex addict to a whorehouse. I despise Reid and Schumer and Pelosi, but I wish republicans had congressional leaders who had their cojones.

Ann is an "alinsky" Republican. Push so hard to the right that if she moves anyone left of her towards her position she has accomplished her object. Just my passing observation

(01-27-2019 04:54 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Ann is an "alinsky" Republican. Push so hard to the right that if she moves anyone left of her towards her position she has accomplished her object. Just my passing observation

That's another way of saying that she is so far right that she is destructive to the center of the party in much the way that George Will's so called centrism which was actually left of the party was as well.

I could identify with Will because of Buckley and Goldwater's fiscal first approaches, but Will lost touch with the party when the Democrats were no longer a rival economic theory, but became the social termites to the underpinning of our liberty in the late 60's and 70's. He was blind to the damage being done and refused to embrace the social mores issues that became prominent in the 80's. After 9/11 I can't find anyone other than Huckabee that even tried to address them and the fiscal first platform for National budget purposes has been radically abandoned in exchange for corporate America's interest which are not necessarily one in the same with the National Defense interests, or National fiscal obligations.

That is why now all either side does is rant and stall. It is the dead space in which Corporate America through treaty as much as law sets the agenda. And it is killing us.

https://www.nysun.com/national/stage-is-...ise/90551/

"...The longstanding state of the southern border has been a scandal and an outrage. Historians of the future will wonder what confederation of cynicism between Democratic politicians and Republican employers was allowed to subvert the interest of the entire American working and middle classes and to promote the passivity of the American state for decades as a total of apparently more than 20 million people poured into the country illegally.

...Tweeting that the incumbent, whom Ann has demonstratively supported, has displaced George Bush senior as the foremost wimp in the history of the American presidency is just nonsense, and it’s also excessive toward Bush ’41.

Bush had his limitations and his obsequies were another occasion, fast on the heels of the week-long, transnational McCain rites, for the Democrats and their talking puppets in the press to proclaim their admiration for Republican presidential candidates they could defeat. It reminded those of us with memories how inexcusable it was to allow a charlatan like Ross Perot to steal 20 million mainly Republican votes in 1992 and inflict the Clintons on America....

(01-27-2019 09:43 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I'm not a fan of Coulter, but she isn't wrong on this. The Republicans had both houses for 2 years, and Trump couldn't get it through. That is on the Republicans. When she says the GOP doesn't really have an interest in securing the boarder, I agree with her. They had the votes to do it, but didn't.

Now Trump has blinked, and conceded on the wall to Pelosi. Trump will probably not get anything done for the next two years, and spend most of his time defending himself from dim house investigations. He has angered a very large portion of his base, and they are actively looking for a real leader with spine. His chances of being reelected in 2020 are diminishing, and he only has himself to blame.

Democrats and RINOs pass the laws they want passed.

They are in lock-step agreement on several issues.

This is the basis for why I've stated for several years:

Democrats tell me what they want while Republicans lie to me. In the end they both want the same thing.

And that "same thing" is decidedly anti-American.

(01-29-2019 01:22 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(01-27-2019 09:43 AM)Side Show Joe Wrote:  I'm not a fan of Coulter, but she isn't wrong on this. The Republicans had both houses for 2 years, and Trump couldn't get it through. That is on the Republicans. When she says the GOP doesn't really have an interest in securing the boarder, I agree with her. They had the votes to do it, but didn't.

Now Trump has blinked, and conceded on the wall to Pelosi. Trump will probably not get anything done for the next two years, and spend most of his time defending himself from dim house investigations. He has angered a very large portion of his base, and they are actively looking for a real leader with spine. His chances of being reelected in 2020 are diminishing, and he only has himself to blame.

Democrats and RINOs pass the laws they want passed.

They are in lock-step agreement on several issues.

This is the basis for why I've stated for several years:

Democrats tell me what they want while Republicans lie to me. In the end they both want the same thing.

And that "same thing" is decidedly anti-American and decidedly pro corporate globalism.

FIFY

Republicans want the immigration for cheap labor. Democrats want the votes. Both sides win.

(01-29-2019 02:21 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Republicans want the immigration for cheap labor. Democrats want the votes. Both sides win.

Cant argue with that.

I have said in the past that the main issue with the USA is not any President it is Congress. The founding fathers knew that America would always be strong and viable if the people in Congress where of high moral standard. We don't have many with high moral standard anymore and look at where we are.