Shutdown Over Border Security?

[carpedm9587]

That's ABSOLUTELY an argument. It's THE argument. They SHOULD NOT BE HERE!!! And you have no clue about my country and what constitutes an emergency.

But I do. I live here and work extensively in locations along the southern border (El Paso, Tucson, San Diego), so I see and talk to the "locals." I also follow what our own CBP says. They want "strategically located barriers," not Trump's 700-900 foot arbitrary "wall."

Illegal immigration is at its lowest in 40 years. If it hasn't been a "National Emergency" worthy of presidential action for 40 years and six presidents, what has changed to suddenly make it an "emergency," especially since it is showing every sign of reducing further. If the two sides of Congress can arrive at a reasonable and funded border security plan, how can anyone justify "national emergency" before that plan has been implemented and the results seen?

This is executive over-reach to placate a political base - nothing more.

But I frankly hope he does it. While it will satiate his base, it will enrage the left and moderates, as well as those agencies whose money is diverted to pay for Trump's wall (that Mexico was supposed to pay for, remember?). And don't give me the "tax increases due to the renegotiated NAFTA will do the deed. We all know that's bunk. Not a single economist has been able to show how any modest change in revenues from the modest changes in NAFTA will amount to the billions in taxes required to build Trump's wall. This is a promise akin to "the tax cut will pay for itself." Now with almost $1T in deficit looking essentially inevitable, the tax cut has NOT paid for itself, has NOT trickled down, and we're getting another load of horse crap from the White House.

[carpedm9587]

Seriously? That's where you went with that? That's the kind of claptrap that allows burglars to sue the homeowners of the homes they are robbing when they get hurt.

The difference is, legal immigrants are allowed to be here. Their mere presence is legal, just like ordinary citizens.

I think Tass' point is, they commit crimes too - some of them violent, including murder. So why are we not simply shutting down immigration altogether? After all, do you want to be the one to tell those families who lost loved ones that their sacrifice is appreciated, because we need immigrants in this country, even if they do commit crimes?



(for the argumentally challenged, that is a "devil's advocate" position - attempting to point out the nebulous argument being made related to crime.)

[Bill the Cat]

So, first, I didn't say "walls are ineffective." I said there is no evidence (so far) that we need 700-900 miles of concrete wall along the southern border. "

There's already 650 miles of fence and wall built. A new 50-250 miles, to total 700-900 is absolutely needed. Trump never called for 700-900 MORE miles.

[Bill the Cat]

I think Tass' point is, they commit crimes too - some of them violent, including murder. So why are we not simply shutting down immigration altogether? After all, do you want to be the one to tell those families who lost loved ones that their sacrifice is appreciated, because we need immigrants in this country, even if they do commit crimes?

Citizens commit crimes too. Do we deport all citizens because some commit crimes? That line of logic just doesn't follow. Legal immigration isn't the problem. As I said to Teraceth, it's like letting burglars sue the homeowners for getting hurt where they had no business being in the first place.

[Bill the Cat]

But I do. I live here and work extensively in locations along the southern border (El Paso, Tucson, San Diego), so I see and talk to the "locals." I also follow what our own CBP says. They want "strategically located barriers," not Trump's 700-900 foot arbitrary "wall."

That's what the 700-900 miles of "wall" are! Strategically located barriers. The border is ~2,000 miles long. You seem to falsely believe that Trump is talking about an ADDITIONAL 1000 miles of wall. If not, your statement makes no sense.

Illegal immigration is at its lowest in 40 years.

Wrong. It increased by 40,000 (To Date stats not finalized from https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/c...ent-statistics) last year.

If it hasn't been a "National Emergency" worthy of presidential action for 40 years and six presidents, what has changed to suddenly make it an "emergency," especially since it is showing every sign of reducing further.

Wrong again. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration shows the first quarter of FY19 is the second highest in the past 6 years, and December was the highest total apprehensions.

If the two sides of Congress can arrive at a reasonable and funded border security plan, how can anyone justify "national emergency" before that plan has been implemented and the results seen?

Do you speak English? If so, what does "there's not going to be any wall money in the legislation." mean to you?

This is executive over-reach to placate a political base - nothing more.

You are dead wrong.

But I frankly hope he does it. While it will satiate his base, it will enrage the left and moderates, as well as those agencies whose money is diverted to pay for Trump's wall (that Mexico was supposed to pay for, remember?). And don't give me the "tax increases due to the renegotiated NAFTA will do the deed. We all know that's bunk. Not a single economist has been able to show how any modest change in revenues from the modest changes in NAFTA will amount to the billions in taxes required to build Trump's wall. This is a promise akin to "the tax cut will pay for itself." Now with almost $1T in deficit looking essentially inevitable, the tax cut has NOT paid for itself, has NOT trickled down, and we're getting another load of horse crap from the White House.

The left hates him anyway because he is the Republican in office. I never expected Mexico to pay for the wall anyway, and I have no problem using a tiny fraction of the budget to fix and build our physical barriers. After all, we spend 65 Million on salmon recovery, 66 Million for the National Endowment for Democracy, and a host of other frivolous earmarks.

[carpedm9587]

There's already 650 miles of fence and wall built. A new 50-250 miles, to total 700-900 is absolutely needed. Trump never called for 700-900 MORE miles.

First - over 350 miles of the existing fence is "vehicle fencing." It prevents a vehicle from crossing, but can be simply stepped over by a person walking. By the way, the locals will tell you that the "vehicle fencing" is next to useless. It takes little time to position ramps on either side and simply drive over (though I understand it has led to more than one amusing incidence of a car that moved too slowly ending up "balanced" on the top of the fence).

The attempt to spin Trump's words is an interesting one. I suppose it can work for some. After all, Trump has changed what he has said so often, anyone can pick pretty much anything out and they'll probably be right for at least one of his speeches. After all, he's called for:

550 miles
1250 miles
700-900 miles

And there are many, many others.

So who knows what he actually wants

[carpedm9587]

Citizens commit crimes too. Do we deport all citizens because some commit crimes?

That's not possible. Ther eis no place to deport them to since they are citizens. But there is no reason we HAVE to let immigrants in, right? They can stay in their own country. And since there is a risk they will do harm - how can we justify letting them in?

That line of logic just doesn't follow. Legal immigration isn't the problem. As I said to Teraceth, it's like letting burglars sue the homeowners for getting hurt where they had no business being in the first place.

I don't see how your argument holds water. It's a fairly simple line of reasoning:

- legal immigrants commit acts of violence
- nothing requires us to let them into our country
- ergo, out of respect for the families who will be impacted and the people who will lose their lives, health, or property - we should just shut down all immigration.

The logic is essentially based on your "illegal immigrants commit acts of violence." It's the same argument. I don't see why being legal or illegal makes any difference. They don't need to be here. If they weren't here - the violence wouldn't occur. End of story.

[Bill the Cat]

That's not possible. There is no place to deport them to since they are citizens. But there is no reason we HAVE to let immigrants in, right? They can stay in their own country. And since there is a risk they will do harm - how can we justify letting them in?

Because legal immigration is legal. Stopping them would require a change to immigration law, which is not substantially different from changing citizenship laws.

I don't see how your argument holds water.

I'm not surprised.

It's a fairly simple line of reasoning:

- legal immigrants commit acts of violence
- nothing requires us to let them into our country
- ergo, out of respect for the families who will be impacted and the people who will lose their lives, health, or property - we should just shut down all immigration.

Your second premise is false. There are existing laws that require us to allow legal immigrants into our country, including asylum applications. Therefore, your whole line of reasoning falls apart.

The logic is essentially based on your "illegal immigrants commit acts of violence." It's the same argument. I don't see why being legal or illegal makes any difference. They don't need to be here. If they weren't here - the violence wouldn't occur. End of story.

"Need to be" and "allowed to be" are entirely different things, and that distinction is where your reasoning crumbles.

[Bill the Cat]

First - over 350 miles of the existing fence is "vehicle fencing." It prevents a vehicle from crossing, but can be simply stepped over by a person walking. By the way, the locals will tell you that the "vehicle fencing" is next to useless. It takes little time to position ramps on either side and simply drive over (though I understand it has led to more than one amusing incidence of a car that moved too slowly ending up "balanced" on the top of the fence).

Exactly. Useless fencing that needs to be replaced. 350 miles costs FAR more than 1.6 B to replace. Thank you for defeating the Dem proposal for me.

The attempt to spin Trump's words is an interesting one. I suppose it can work for some. After all, Trump has changed what he has said so often, anyone can pick pretty much anything out and they'll probably be right for at least one of his speeches. After all, he's called for:

550 miles
1250 miles
700-900 miles

And there are many, many others.

So who knows what he actually wants

So, you bring articles from 3 separate times and 3 separate contexts that basically all say the same thing - that there will be a combination of renovations and new construction which will cover strategic areas, but not the "sea to shining sea" the Dems and the leftist media keep deceptively attributing to him.

[carpedm9587]

That's what the 700-900 miles of "wall" are! Strategically located barriers. The border is ~2,000 miles long. You seem to falsely believe that Trump is talking about an ADDITIONAL 1000 miles of wall. If not, your statement makes no sense.

As noted, anyone arguing "what Trump wants" has to confront the widely varying things hes said over the last 4 years. I don't think anyone can claim to know. I doubt Trump knows. There is no evidence I have been able to find, however, that supports your claim that it is "strategic." If you have such evidence, I'll be happy to look at it.

Wrong. It increased by 40,000 (To Date stats not finalized from https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/c...ent-statistics) last year.

Yes, it has increased a bit in the last year. And most of that increase is families - if you check your stats. But was down 82% between 2005 and 2015, and the slight increase in one year hasn't made much of a dent in that reduction.

Wrong again. https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration shows the first quarter of FY19 is the second highest in the past 6 years, and December was the highest total apprehensions.

See my previous response.

Do you speak English? If so, what does "there's not going to be any wall money in the legislation." mean to you?

It means that the people negotiating are proposing other approaches. Last I knew, some funding for strategic segments and refreshing of the existing barrier was being discussed.

You are dead wrong.

Just saying so doesn't make it so, BTC. But I agree that we are both asserting. My sense of Trump is that he is in a corner. He promised his base a wall - they are eating up the idea of a wall - and any attempt on his part to go in any other direction is immediately met with derision from his base - so it's "wall or bust."

To inform yourself, BTC, you might want to take a wander along what already exists along the border.

The left hates him anyway because he is the Republican in office.

Well - many (most?) on the right hated Obama because he was the "Democrat in office," so I'm not sure why this is a surprise. Yes - many (most?) on the left hate Trump because he's a Republican. I dislike him and want him out of office because he's a vile, immoral/amoral man and I am ashamed to have him holding the highest office in our country.

I never expected Mexico to pay for the wall anyway, and I have no problem using a tiny fraction of the budget to fix and build our physical barriers. After all, we spend 65 Million on salmon recovery, 66 Million for the National Endowment for Democracy, and a host of other frivolous earmarks.

And I think ALL of the waste should go. What happened to fiscal conservatism? So now it's "we can waste, as long as it's something I want?" By that argument, since other people want the other things...

[carpedm9587]

Because legal immigration is legal. Stopping them would require a change to immigration law, which is not substantially different from changing citizenship laws.

Legal, but not necessary. Come on, Bill - are we really going to quibble here? Let's tell those families, "it's OK that we let those immigrants in even though they kill your families and rape your daughters, because the immigration is legal." Really? Where is that compassion for these poor victims? Let's change those laws! No immigration!

I'm not surprised.

I'm not surprised that you're not surprised.

Your second premise is false. There are existing laws that require us to allow legal immigrants into our country, including asylum applications. Therefore, your whole line of reasoning falls apart.

So you might note that this wasn't exactly a syllogism. And laws can be changed. That's what we're discussing here. We should be moving to shut down all immigration and protect the poor families that have family members who are being killed and raped by these immigrants. We can do it. There is nothing that I know of in the constitution that requires immigration. Let's just shut it all down. Say no to anyone already in the pipeline. Stop asylum applications. Kick out anyone who is not already a citizen and be done with this senseless carnage.

"Need to be" and "allowed to be" are entirely different things, and that distinction is where your reasoning crumbles.

That distinction is irrelevant. We can change the laws and they will no longer be allowed - period. And by the "victim" argument - we owe that to these poor families. Shut down all immigration. End the carnage. If you disagree - then give me one reason why we need to keep immigration laws as they are - and let immigrants in, knowing that some of them will rape and kill.

[carpedm9587]

Exactly. Useless fencing that needs to be replaced. 350 miles costs FAR more than 1.6 B to replace. Thank you for defeating the Dem proposal for me.

I didn't say it had to be replaced. I don't know if it has to be replaced. As best I can tell - you don't either. You've bought into the optics that have not a shred of data backing them, AFAICT. If you have data that shows that changing this fencing to "Trump's Wall" is the best approach for securing the border, by all means present it. Otherwise...

So, you bring articles from 3 separate times and 3 separate contexts that basically all say the same thing - that there will be a combination of renovations and new construction which will cover strategic areas, but not the "sea to shining sea" the Dems and the leftist media keep deceptively attributing to him.

That was basically the point - and I arbitrarily stopped at three. I could have gone on. The point is that Trump keeps changing what he wants. One time it's "Mexico will write a check" then it's "the NAFTA changes will pay for it (despite any evidence that is even possible - and demonstrating a complete lack of knowledge as to how federal budgeting works). One time it's 100 miles, another it's 700-900, another its 550, another it's "strategically placed" and there are even other places where it's "the whole border." Basically, Trump has proposed a variety of numbers from 50 to "the whole border" at one time or another. So you can pick ANY number and say "Trump wants this" and you will be at least partially right, since he apparently did at one time or another.

Here's a bit of his history with this subject. What it shows me is that Trump is a politician. He talks out of both sides of his mouth and says what he thinks will appeal to whoever he wants to appeal to at the time. Most of the time - it's his "base."

[Bill the Cat]

As noted, anyone arguing "what Trump wants" has to confront the widely varying things hes said over the last 4 years. I don't think anyone can claim to know. I doubt Trump knows. There is no evidence I have been able to find, however, that supports your claim that it is "strategic." If you have such evidence, I'll be happy to look at it.

I'm not at all concerned with campaign promises. I'm looking at what Border Patrol has asked for and what that entails.

As far as the plans of what is being asked for:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693488.pdf

Yes, it has increased a bit in the last year. And most of that increase if families - if you check your stats. But was down 82% between 2005 and 2015, and the slight increase in one year hasn't made much of a dent in that reduction.

Correct, but it's rising overall in the last 6 quarters. And that shows your claim is wrong that it's the lowest in 40 years.

See my previous response.

Which is just as misleading.

It means that the people negotiating are proposing other approaches. Last I knew, some funding for strategic segments and refreshing of the existing barrier was being discussed.

But no new construction. And that's the point.

Just saying so doesn't make it so, BTC. But I agree that we are both asserting. My sense of Trump is that he is in a corner. He promised his base a wall - they are eating up the idea of a wall - and any attempt on his part to go in any other direction is immediately met with derision from his base - so it's "wall or bust."

Because we see the problem. And we've provided evidence that walls work. And the left are playing to their base just as bad, if not worse, calling it a "waste", despite pretty clear evidence of the success of physical barriers where they exist and are properly monitored. The difference is that the left has the media parroting these same falsehoods.

To inform yourself, BTC, you might want to take a wander along what already exists along the border.

Been there, done that. It's excellent photographic evidence of the problem. Combine that with the myriad of videos of illegals just open-running across the border in Texas, and you continue to make an excellent case for the need for more physical barriers.

Well - many (most?) on the right hated Obama because he was the "Democrat in office," so I'm not sure why this is a surprise. Yes - many (most?) on the left hate Trump because he's a Republican. I dislike him and want him out of office because he's a vile, immoral/amoral man and I am ashamed to have him holding the highest office in our country.

Did you share the same disdain for Bill Clinton? Just asking...

And I think ALL of the waste should go. What happened to fiscal conservatism? So now it's "we can waste, as long as it's something I want?" By that argument, since other people want the other things...

Again, that falsely assumes that physical security is a waste.

[Bill the Cat]

Legal, but not necessary. Come on, Bill - are we really going to quibble here? Let's tell those families, "it's OK that we let those immigrants in even though they kill your families and rape your daughters, because the immigration is legal." Really? Where is that compassion for these poor victims? Let's change those laws! No immigration!

You're being obtuse. Nothing is necessary. Legal is the only thing that matters in this discussion.

So you might note that this wasn't exactly a syllogism. And laws can be changed. That's what we're discussing here. We should be moving to shut down all immigration and protect the poor families that have family members who are being killed and raped by these immigrants. We can do it. There is nothing that I know of in the constitution that requires immigration. Let's just shut it all down. Say no to anyone already in the pipeline. Stop asylum applications. Kick out anyone who is not already a citizen and be done with this senseless carnage.

And we can kick all citizens out too. Just takes a change of the law. Kick all citizens out and be done with the senseless carnage.

That distinction is irrelevant.

No. It is the only relevant thing.

We can change the laws and they will no longer be allowed - period. And by the "victim" argument - we owe that to these poor families. Shut down all immigration. End the carnage. If you disagree - then give me one reason why we need to keep immigration laws as they are - and let immigrants in, knowing that some of them will rape and kill.

Then we owe it to ALL victims to kick EVERYONE out, since some citizens rape and kill. Again, the line is legally present and illegally present.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not at all concerned with campaign promises. I'm looking at what Border Patrol has asked for and what that entails.

As far as the plans of what is being asked for:

https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/693488.pdf

You are the FIRST to provide a link that provides any indication of an "evidence-based" approach. Assuming the data they reference exists (and I have no reason to think it doesn't), I don't have problems with any of these requests and think they should be honored.

Correct, but it's rising overall in the last 6 quarters. And that shows your claim is wrong that it's the lowest in 40 years.

I agree with this statement, but I think you're quibbling over nits. Yes, technically it bottomed out in 2017 rather than 2018, but since it peaked twice (mid 80s and early 2000s) at over 1.6M, a 40K increase that is predominantly families is not an "emergency" by any stretch of the imagination. You also don't know if the cause for the increase is because more people are coming, or because they are actually catching more of them due to increased security at the border. After all, the military was dispatched for some time and there have been improvements in border security.

Which is just as misleading.

Again - saying so doesn't make it so... shrug:

But no new construction. And that's the point.

And no "emergency" to warrant it. Let the proposals happen and play out. If they don't do the deed, then complain.

Because we see the problem. And we've provided evidence that walls work. And the left are playing to their base just as bad, if not worse, calling it a "waste", despite pretty clear evidence of the success of physical barriers where they exist and are properly monitored. The difference is that the left has the media parroting these same falsehoods.

And you have fellow citizens who disagree with your assessment. The question is not "do walls work?" The question is "is a wall the best and most cos-effective choice." We also have a lot of evidence that the walls will not solve the problems Trump claims it will solve.

Been there, done that. It's excellent photographic evidence of the problem. Combine that with the myriad of videos of illegals just open-running across the border in Texas, and you continue to make an excellent case for the need for more physical barriers.

No - not really. The images just provide a view of "what is." It doesn't prove or support "what is needed."

Did you share the same disdain for Bill Clinton? Just asking...

I thought (and think) Clinton is a moral pig. I agreed with many of his political positions. I disagreed with others.

Again, that falsely assumes that physical security is a waste.

No - it resists the assumption that "a physical wall" is the best way to attain "physical security," for all of the reasons noted. If the wall is strategically located, and evidence-backed, I have no problem with it. I personally think the Dems shouldn't either. I have seen nothing to make me think we need to wall off the border, most of the border, or even significantly more of the border than has already been walled off. Until someone can provide evidence otherwise, I will continue to think it is a waste of money.