ChiefsPlanet Mobile
Page 8 of 27
« First < 45678 910111218 > Last »
Washington DC and The Holy Land>What should trump give to get his 5B for the wall?
RodeoPants2 03:42 PM 01-09-2019
Trump's approach here seems to be to whine and hope he gets his way. But if you want to make a deal, both sides need to be happy with it.

Trump is supposedly the master dealmaker, lol, clearly not.

What would you give the democrats in exchange for getting the wall?
[Reply]
RodeoPants2 10:30 AM 01-10-2019
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Your focus on damaging Trump instead of doing right by the country is a turn off.
Tax returns is not about damaging trump, it's about understanding how he might be compromised, it's about providing transparency to the country in the way that every single modern presidential candidate has done.
[Reply]
Eleazar 10:30 AM 01-10-2019
Originally Posted by Pogue:
E-verification isnít going to stop drugs and human trafficking at the border.
But that's not the main problem, is it? The main problem is the massive number of people seeking to work illegally. E-Verify coupled with a massive level of criminal enforcement against employers would work just fine for that.

A wall could be part of a sound border security strategy, but it shouldn't be the cornerstone or the main or first objective. The first objective should be enforcement of the law.

Plus, that strategy carries the benefit of putting the people opposing the general border security agenda in a difficult position to defend, because they have to come out against enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

The wall is a fool's errand that has no chance of being built, and in the meantime trump has squandered the only opportunity we've had in decades to actually move the needle on the border security issue.
[Reply]
Donger 10:31 AM 01-10-2019
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Because a wall with no change to immigration enforcement is a complete joke. Worse, a wall destroys almost all leverage to negotiate that in. Strict enforcement with resources to do it and no wall is a hell of a lot better than a wall with no enforcement.
No, it isn't. See the results of the wall in between San Diego and Tijuana (and east).

Look, I'm for all of it, including a physical barrier.
[Reply]
Fish 10:40 AM 01-10-2019
Originally Posted by Eleazar:
But that's not the main problem, is it? The main problem is the massive number of people seeking to work illegally. E-Verify coupled with a massive level of criminal enforcement against employers would work just fine for that.

A wall could be part of a sound border security strategy, but it shouldn't be the cornerstone or the main or first objective. The first objective should be enforcement of the law.

Plus, that strategy carries the benefit of putting the people opposing the general border security agenda in a difficult position to defend, because they have to come out against enforcing the laws that are already on the books.

The wall is a fool's errand that has no chance of being built, and in the meantime trump has squandered the only opportunity we've had in decades to actually move the needle on the border security issue.
:-)
[Reply]
Loneiguana 10:41 AM 01-10-2019
Originally Posted by RodeoPants2:
Tax returns is not about damaging trump, it's about understanding how he might be compromised, it's about providing transparency to the country in the way that every single modern presidential candidate has done.
It really says something when even Patty just assumes the tax returns will be damaging to Trump.

What a defense!
[Reply]
chiefzilla1501 10:42 AM 01-10-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
No, it isn't. See the results of the wall in between San Diego and Tijuana (and east).

Look, I'm for all of it, including a physical barrier.
So what you're saying is that walls are effective at stopping people... At the border. No metric for if immigrants are getting in some other way. The majority of our illegal immigrants got into the country legally then overstayed. A bulk of our illegal immigrants snuck in through a port of entry. And it goes without saying that in remote areas, unlike areas like Tijuana that can be heavily staffed, you're not going to come even close to the same level of enforcement. It helps a tiny bit but isn't even close in importance as enforcing immigration laws on the books.
[Reply]
scho63 10:44 AM 01-10-2019
Originally Posted by Fat Elvis:
As a Dem, I would let tRump build his stupid wall (all $25-75B), but in exchange, I would want DACA, immigration reform, single payer healthcare, a real middle class tax cut, 73+% top marginal tax rate, a GreenNewDeal, free college, increased infrastructure spending.
You should change your user name from Fat Elvis to Fat Government with a response like that.........:-)
[Reply]
Donger 10:50 AM 01-10-2019
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
So what you're saying is that walls are effective at stopping people... At the border. No metric for if immigrants are getting in some other way. The majority of our illegal immigrants got into the country legally then overstayed. A bulk of our illegal immigrants snuck in through a port of entry. And it goes without saying that in remote areas, unlike areas like Tijuana that can be heavily staffed, you're not going to come even close to the same level of enforcement. It helps a tiny bit but isn't even close in importance as enforcing immigration laws on the books.
That's correct.

Again, deal with everything. Including employers who employ illegals. Truly comprehensive.
[Reply]
Baby Lee 10:53 AM 01-10-2019
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
As I've said before, if Trump wanted to step away from the wall knowing the dems will resist at all costs, he could negotiate an aggressive immigration deal.

Imagine if we instead used $5b on everify, state of the art tech for enforcement, more border patrol and ICE. Even better, imagine if the Republicans actually convinced the democrats to sign off on labor law that strictly enforces that employers hire only legal workers. And you don't have to give up huge bargaining chips on things like DACA.

The Republicans have so much leverage on this if the followers weren't so narrowminded on this shiny object of a wall. Not only does a wall accomplish way less, who knows what conservative projects Trump will need to hold hostage as bargaining chips to make a wall appear out of thin air. But that would involve doing the most effective thing, not just insisting on "winning."
Originally Posted by Pogue:
E-verification isn’t going to stop drugs and human trafficking at the border.
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Because a wall with no change to immigration enforcement is a complete joke. Worse, a wall destroys almost all leverage to negotiate that in. Strict enforcement with resources to do it and no wall is a hell of a lot better than a wall with no enforcement.
Potayto, potahto. Thing is, the wall is tangible and durable.

When immigration isn't on the front burner, immigration legislation is unfortunately subject to the executive prerogatives of the current POTUS.

It's a lot more difficult to justify abandoning surveillance of a wall than to de-emphasize less visible enforcement efforts with the stroke of a pen.

And yes, the level of trust both ways has fallen that far.
[Reply]
Eleazar 10:54 AM 01-10-2019
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
It really says something when even Patty just assumes the tax returns will be damaging to Trump.

What a defense!
If a person isn't required by law to disclose something and chooses not to disclose it, that's their prerogative.

If you find that this is problematic for you, then you are free not to vote for that candidate.
[Reply]
chiefzilla1501 11:07 AM 01-10-2019
Originally Posted by Donger:
That's correct.

Again, deal with everything. Including employers who employ illegals. Truly comprehensive.
If the wall opponents cave on a wall, you really think you have any shot in hell at even a hint of immigration reform? Good luck with that.
[Reply]
Taco John 11:09 AM 01-10-2019

President Obama, thank you for your great support – I have been saying this all along! pic.twitter.com/L506g9Aq4z

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 10, 2019


[Reply]
RodeoPants2 11:11 AM 01-10-2019
Originally Posted by Beef Supreme:
Oh it's a less crass way of saying it but it boils down to the same message.
No it's not. You are hearing what you want to hear.

President Obama (along with Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, every modern president, except fuckface von orange) went out of his way to make clear he was president for everyone, and there to serve everyone.
[Reply]
Donger 11:11 AM 01-10-2019
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
If the wall opponents cave on a wall, you really think you have any shot in hell at even a hint of immigration reform? Good luck with that.
I would certainly hope so. That's up to them.
[Reply]
vailpass 11:11 AM 01-10-2019
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
If the wall opponents cave on a wall, you really think you have any shot in hell at even a hint of immigration reform? Good luck with that.
Wut?
[Reply]
Page 8 of 27
« First < 45678 910111218 > Last »
Up