The Trump Presidency – 2016

[JPhillips]

Trump had a wall for DACA deal and wouldn't take it. The goal isn't reform, it's restriction of non-Euro immigrants. There's no deal to be made when that's the objective.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I do support Trump in finding a way to fund the wall. I am sorry it has to come out of their dole. I wish the Democrats would give Trump another chance at trying to make a DACA deal for Wall funding. I wish Obama and the Dems had the courage to do the holistic immigration reform when they had the opportunity to in his first 2 years.

So enough about me. Easy enough to snipe but how about you laying out what you support and letting me react to it?

1) Other than no wall, what do you want to do about illegal immigrants coming over, those already here, and special situation with DACA?

2) What do you want to see done with our troops currently in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other low intensity conflicts (e.g. Philippines)?

1) Punish companies who knowingly hire undocumented workers through heavy fines and prison. Guarantee hiring of illegal immigrants plummets the first time a CEO gets a multi-year prison sentence. Put more money toward enforcing those who have overstayed visas.

2) Those in Iraq and Afghanistan can come home to be with their families. Maintain a presence internationally like we do but with smaller numbers. No need to have over 200,000 people stationed overseas.

[Edward64]

[quote=RainMaker;3263370]Unauthorized immigrants smaller share of U.S. foreign-born population | Pew Research Center

Thanks for the link. Your link has a graphic similar to another I had. The reduction in illegals started before Obama and started same time as Great Recession.

I get their survey said family reasons but doubtful that was the root cause.

No it isn't. Mexico has been a net negative over the past 5 years too.

Mexicans decline to less than half of US undocumented immigrant population | Pew Research Center

The areas where we are seeing net positives are in Central America (where we fuck around with their politics) and Asia (who aren't dark enough to be seen as a threat by racists).

Don't know the discrepancy but see below for my source (2017). 53-55% vs 47% significant difference but same story - Mexicans are the largest illegal population by far.

Illegal immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the countries of origin for the largest numbers of illegal immigrants are as follows (latest of 2017):[51]

Country of origin Raw number Percent of total
Mexico 6,640,000 55
El Salvador 700,000 6
Guatemala 640,000 5
India 430,000 4
Honduras 400,000 3
Philippines 360,000 3
China 270,000 2
Korea 250,000 2
Vietnam 200,000 2
Dominican Republic 180,000 1
Other 2,050,000 17

According to the Migration Policy Institute, Mexicans represented 53% of the illegal immigrant population.[70] The next largest percentages were from Asia (16%), El Salvador (6%), and Guatemala (5%).

The Urban Institute also estimates "between 65,000 and 75,000 Canadians currently live illegally in the United States."[71]

If illegal immigration was the real issue, efforts would be put toward curbing the areas where it is growing, not declining. That would be in regards to overstayed visas. But illegal immigration isn't really the issue when it comes to a wall.

Southwest border illegal crossing was approx 400K in 2018. Illegal overstays of approx 550K in 2017. Illegal Mexican population is between 47-55% of total illegal population. So what is the issue with the focus on stopping illegals coming (and staying from) south of the border? You can say we should focus more on overstays (agree) but there is no reason not to focus on south of the border. They may be a declining problem but still the largest.

Illegal Immigration Statistics - FactCheck.org

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

1) Punish companies who knowingly hire undocumented workers through heavy fines and prison. Guarantee hiring of illegal immigrants plummets the first time a CEO gets a multi-year prison sentence. Put more money toward enforcing those who have overstayed visas.

I get you are focusing on the Demand side. How about illegal immigrants coming over now, those already here, and DACA?

1) Other than no wall, what do you want to do about illegal immigrants coming over, those already here, and special situation with DACA?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Trump had a wall for DACA deal and wouldn't take it. The goal isn't reform, it's restriction of non-Euro immigrants.

Agree he should have taken the Wall for DACA.

The goal is reform but admittedly it is favors the more educated, wealthy and western countries. Changing from family based to merit based immigration is not a bad thing.

There's no deal to be made when that's the objective.

Let's hope the Democrats win the Presidency, keep the House and can make a deal with the GOP.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I get their survey said family reasons but doubtful that was the root cause.

I guess you would know their intentions more than they would.

Don't know the discrepancy but see below for my source (2017). 53-55% vs 47% significant difference but same story - Mexicans are the largest illegal population by far.

Illegal immigration to the United States - Wikipedia

Your numbers come from 2014. Mine come from 2019. There has been a big shift over the years.

Southwest border illegal crossing was approx 400K in 2018. Illegal overstays of approx 550K in 2017. Illegal Mexican population is between 47-55% of total illegal population. So what is the issue with the focus on stopping illegals coming (and staying from) south of the border? You can say we should focus more on overstays (agree) but there is no reason not to focus on south of the border.

Illegal Immigration Statistics - FactCheck.org

We are talking about stopping the influx of illegal immigrants, right? That's the whole point of the wall and all this funding being taken away from the military.

The vast majority of new illegal immigrants in this country come from people overstaying their visas. People who enter this country through the air. So if your goal is to target growth in undocumented immigrants entering the country, that should be your overwhelming focus right now. It's not.

Is that gross incompetence or because this is more about melanin reduction than illegal immigration?

[JPhillips]

GOP lawyers get near the end and make clear that Trump can't be impeached, but Biden can be because Hunter was on the Burisma board.

Democracy is much more fragile than we think.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

2) Those in Iraq and Afghanistan can come home to be with their families. Maintain a presence internationally like we do but with smaller numbers. No need to have over 200,000 people stationed overseas.

If I recall and earlier discussion, you are a pacifist and found no reason why we should have been in Afghanistan, Iraq or any other conflict except for WW2.

I generally agree with bringing troops back from Afghanistan, Korea but see need for their continued presence in many other places that you would likely disagree with.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I get you are focusing on the Demand side. How about illegal immigrants coming over now, those already here, and DACA?

If you come over now illegally, you should be deported in a humane manner. As for those who have been here for a long time, a path to citizenship as long as they have been law abiding.

As for DACA, they should definitely have a path to citizenship. Being brought here as a child was not their choice.

[JPhillips]

And Lamar! makes it official saying no to witnesses. His rationale is that the case has already been proven, but that's not enough for impeachment. He did it, so fucking what?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I guess you would know their intentions more than they would.

So you are saying there was some sort of paradigm shift or critical mass where in 2007 many illegals decided to just voluntarily return home?

Your numbers come from 2014. Mine come from 2019. There has been a big shift over the years.

Oh sorry, the article said 2017. Nevertheless 47% is the largest by a wide margin.

We are talking about stopping the influx of illegal immigrants, right? That's the whole point of the wall and all this funding being taken away from the military.

Where we differ is you only want to focus on border crossings/overstays. I want to focus on those and also existing illegals in the country.

I suspect you also think I believe Wall will solve all the illegal problem. I think the Wall will help but we need a holistic immigration reform package.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

If you come over now illegally, you should be deported in a humane manner. As for those who have been here for a long time, a path to citizenship as long as they have been law abiding.

As for DACA, they should definitely have a path to citizenship. Being brought here as a child was not their choice.

I can actually support this. However, a concern this won't work without real enforcement. Reagan gave amnesty and we are back to considering another amnesty.

I guess we differ on the physical Wall (+ electronics + resources) to prevent them from coming illegally in the first place (and revisting this problem again in next 30 years).

[RainMaker]

The article says 2017 but is using 2014 data.

If your goal is to stop new illegal immigrants, you should focus on the largest and easiest path toward it first. Put your resources in that before tossing billions at methods that have marginal impacts at best.

That is unless the goal isn't really about illegal immigration.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I can actually support this. However, a concern this won't work without real enforcement. Reagan gave amnesty and we are back to considering another amnesty.

I guess we differ on the physical Wall (+ electronics + resources) to prevent them from coming illegally in the first place (and revisting this problem again in next 30 years).

Putting the money toward enforcement of businesses who break the law would solve the problem of both illegal crossings and overstayed visas in one swoop. Weird how that's not even on the Republicans radar. Almost if there is more to this.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If I recall and earlier discussion, you are a pacifist and found no reason why we should have been in Afghanistan, Iraq or any other conflict except for WW2.

I generally agree with bringing troops back from Afghanistan, Korea but see need for their continued presence in many other places that you would likely disagree with.

I'm not a pacifist. Just not a chickenhawk who wants to send other people's kids into war I'm too cowardly to fight in.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The article says 2017 but is using 2014 data.

If your goal is to stop new illegal immigrants, you should focus on the largest and easiest path toward it first. Put your resources in that before tossing billions at methods that have marginal impacts at best.

That is unless the goal isn't really about illegal immigration.

Do both. Doesn't need to be single-threaded.

It is about illegal immigration, all of it; but some should have more priority than others. Don't focus on overstays and ignore the largest issue.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I'm not a pacifist. Just not a chickenhawk who wants to send other people's kids into war I'm too cowardly to fight in.

Okay not a pacifist. But to be clear, you do not support any US military conflict since WW2?

Specifically

1) You do not believe the US should have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11?
2) You would not have supported our intervention into Kosovo/Bosnia?
3) You would not have supported our intervention into Somalia?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Putting the money toward enforcement of businesses who break the law would solve the problem of both illegal crossings and overstayed visas in one swoop. Weird how that's not even on the Republicans radar. Almost if there is more to this.

Agree addressing the demand side should be included. Too bad Obama and the Dems didn't think to address it in his first 2 years.

However, this may solve much of the problem to the detriment of our economy. I rather do something with substantially increasing guest workers.

[Chief Rum]

FFS are we really having this discussion again? Why don't y'all just masturbate to this same discussion from last month? Or two months ago?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Okay not a pacifist. But to be clear, you do not support any US military conflict since WW2?

Specifically

1) You do not believe the US should have gone into Afghanistan after 9/11?
2) You would not have supported our intervention into Kosovo/Bosnia?
3) You would not have supported our intervention into Somalia?

Afghanistan is really the only one where I think an argument could be made. But that involves surgical strikes and supporting countries/groups that will help us root out terrorists. Full on invasion and occupation was a mistake and benefited us in no way (except if you owned defense industry stocks).

As for the others, no. I'm fine with financially supporting groups and providing aid. Not with sending troops over there to die.

Then again, most of these conflicts we've been in are blowback from previous disastrous foreign policy decisions. There is no war in Afghanistan if we didn't meddle for decades in the Middle East. So you're asking if I support a war that only happened because of something dumb we did that I wouldn't have supported.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Agree addressing the demand side should be included. Too bad Obama and the Dems didn't think to address it in his first 2 years.

However, this may solve much of the problem to the detriment of our economy. I rather do something with substantially increasing guest workers.

It wasn't done by Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and so on because it's not about illegal immigration. No one in power really wants to see it curbed.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Afghanistan is really the only one where I think an argument could be made. But that involves surgical strikes and supporting countries/groups that will help us root out terrorists. Full on invasion and occupation was a mistake and benefited us in no way (except if you owned defense industry stocks).

As for the others, no. I'm fine with financially supporting groups and providing aid. Not with sending troops over there to die.

Then again, most of these conflicts we've been in are blowback from previous disastrous foreign policy decisions. There is no war in Afghanistan if we didn't meddle for decades in the Middle East. So you're asking if I support a war that only happened because of something dumb we did that I wouldn't have supported.

There are many military conflicts/interventions that I don't think the US should have gotten involved in. However, IMO the 3 examples that I supplied ... the intent/initial was justifiable regardless of how they eventually turned out.

I looked up the definition of Pacifist and I agree you don't fit the literal definition. But you are pretty much next rung down IMO.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

FFS are we really having this discussion again? Why don't y'all just masturbate to this same discussion from last month? Or two months ago?

Well, Daddy issues and small-dicks did come up ... personally, I think it was a Freudian slip myself

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It wasn't done by Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and so on because it's not about illegal immigration. No one in power really wants to see it curbed.

The blame and/or lack of action is not just on GOP (this cycle it is), its been throughout regardless of Dem/GOP. So when attacking Trump (deservedly so) and the GOP, let's acknowledge that the Dems are not blameless too.

I will give kudos to GWB. He tried to reform immigration, specifically the illegals and guest workers but did not have enough support. It was about illegal immigration.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The blame and/or lack of action is not just on GOP (this cycle it is), its been throughout regardless of Dem/GOP. So when attacking Trump (deservedly so) and the GOP, let's acknowledge that the Dems are not blameless too.

I will give kudos to GWB. He tried to reform immigration, specifically the illegals and guest workers but did not have enough support. It was about illegal immigration.

Neither party wants to change things. Our economy relies too heavily on it. It's just a political rallying cry used to target a certain demographic of voters.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

FFS are we really having this discussion again? Why don't y'all just masturbate to this same discussion from last month? Or two months ago?

It was the argument that never ends...


Meanwhile, our Republic is burning. Let's ignore that and argue about the evil brown people some more.

[kingfc22]

McConnell will go down in history as the biggest detriment to the Constitution and the ideas America was built on. Congrats.

[Flasch186]

Once again the 4 moderate GOP question mark people find cover and don't actually have to do shit. I swear we need a multi-party system. This Manchurian Candidate shit is unbelievable and I'll repeat again that if A dem had done 10% of what Trump's done they would have tossed him AND now the moral high ground that they'll proclaim in 4 years against the next dope is hollowed out. The bet is that American's memories are incredibly short.

Who you gonna believe, me or your lying eyes?

[JPhillips]

They've already laid the groundwork for impeaching Biden during the trial. It will play out something like this:

GOP: You said you were against abuses of power.

Media: They have a point.

At least 2 Dem Senators: You're right, you got us.

GOP: And we won't seat the Ginsburg replacement because Biden was corrupt.

Media: Savvy.

[spleen1015]

If I'm the Dems, I let them have Biden if it means Trump gets removed from office. They can beat Pence with anyone.

[Kodos]

Unfortunately, I don't think enough Republicans would vote to remove Trump even if he shot someone on camera and then signed a confession.

[JediKooter]

Since trumps lawyers said that a president can't be impeached even for committing a crime, so that means Clinton's impeachment is completely invalidated right? I may not be following along correctly, as it is kind of hard to keep up with the mental gymnastics of his attorneys.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Unfortunately, I don't think enough Republicans would vote to remove Trump even if he shot someone on camera and then signed a confession.

Like the lady on CNN that was asked that if Trump shot someone on 5th ave would she think he committed a crime and she said, "well.... why'd he shoot the person....might not be a crime." Yeah indeed she's right but it's that sort of pause given the orange pres. that would never be given to anyone else or has been in the past. Trump has been right and who knew that the country was so ripe to be Jonestown en masee.

[JPhillips]

Jesus, they just keep adding worse excuses. From Little Marco:

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office."

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Jesus, they just keep adding worse excuses. From Little Marco:

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office."

It's like dealing with a child that is trying negotiate out of brushing their teeth before bed.

[larrymcg421]

The Rubio case is pretty sad, actually. There's no question that he absolutely hates Trump. Hates that someone so stupid and immoral won the nomination. You could see it during the debates as he got increasingly frustrated. Yet he has fallen in line behind Trump because he still thinks he has a shot to be President and knows that supporting Trump 100% is the only way he stays relevant in the GOP. It's hard to watch.

[Jas_lov]

Probably better for the Dems that GOP votes against witnesses. Trump wasn't going to get convicted unless he shot someone on live television and even then he'd claim he was framed. Now the Dems can claim it was an unfair trial which people understand. 70% wanted witnesses. Bolton's story will come out that makes it look even more like a coverup.

[thesloppy]

Sigh.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Jesus, they just keep adding worse excuses. From Little Marco:

"I reserve the right to impeach and convict a President with a "D" next to the name for less."

[Flasch186]

The dems will run on the coverup and it might resonate. The fear though is as always the dems put up a terrible candidate to run against Trump and some people will hold their nose and vote for him versus Bernie or Beth.

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by bronconick

"I reserve the right to impeach and convict a President with a "D" next to the name for less."

Odds on the GOP throwing up articles of impeachment on the next D president when they have House majority?

[JPhillips]

They already said during the trial that Biden could be impeached because Hunter was on the Burisma board.

[bronconick]

Originally Posted by Atocep

Odds on the GOP throwing up articles of impeachment on the next D president when they have House majority?

100%. They would've gone after Obama in a second if they could have found something bigger than Dijon mustard or tan pants.

[JPhillips]

Trump expands the travel ban:

Nigeria, Sudan, Tanzania and Eritrea in Africa; Myanmar in Southeast Asia; and Kyrgyzstan in Central Asia.

White nationalists gonna white nationalist.

[JPhillips]

They really do just keep getting worse.

From Lamar!

“Whatever you think of his behavior, with the terrific economy, with conservative judges, with fewer regulations, you add in there an inappropriate call with the president of Ukraine, and you decide if your prefer him or Elizabeth Warren.”

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Trump expands the travel ban:

White nationalists gonna white nationalist.

Nigerian immigrants have the highest education levels in the country. Their median income is well above the national median.

Wonder what the reason could be.......

Originally Posted by Edward64

Not going to deny that Miller has racist motives. Transforming to merit-based and decreasing family-based immigration is a pretty good idea to me.

Access Denied

So much for your merit based immigration.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Nigerian immigrants have the highest education levels in the country. Their median income is well above the national median.

Wonder what the reason could be.......

I'm sure its because of ageism.

So much for your merit based immigration.

Non sequitur.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I'm sure its because of ageism.



Non sequitur.

It’s because they are black!

[Edward64]

I know this is to keep/appease his political base and applaud his creativeness in straddling the fence.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/31/polit...ial/index.html

Here are the key lines from Rubio's statement (which you can and should read here):

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office. ...

"... I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation."

[SackAttack]

Fuck his creativeness.

Cowardly sniveling little weasel who's more concerned about pissing off his base than about the damage he's inflicting on the rule of law in the name of getting re-elected.