Can anyone justify NOT having the Wall?

[Mr. Deez]

I dunno Deez. Every dreamer I see on TV is something like class valedictorian, going to Yale and coming back to Texas to teach in the inner city. Or maybe an exceptional artist whose beautiful murals serve as a catalyst to a revitalized neighborhood. You have any data points to the contrary?

For meaningful analysis, I don't think it's helpful to bring up anecdotes. However, if you look for bad apples, they definitely exist. Link.

In Deezestan (the hypothetical nation in which I am the benevolent dictator), I wouldn't grant amnesty to DREAMers on a broad basis. I'd have all kinds of restrictions, and the process would be onerous.

 

[Crockett]

For meaningful analysis, I don't think it's helpful to bring up anecdotes.

I hope you realize I was making a commentary on popular media, not meaningful analysis. What the hell does careful analysis of facts have to do with anything political anymore?

 

[Mr. Deez]

I hope you realize I was making a commentary on popular media, not meaningful analysis. What the hell does careful analysis of facts have to do with anything political anymore?

It's hard to tell with you. You've made a bit of a turn to the Right in recent months.

 

[Crockett]

I am pretty much a reluctant Democrat because of what I perceive as unbridled right wing idiocy in Texas politics. I have sympathy for Dreamers and don't want to ship them out en mass, but I do believe we need to have and control borders. I personally know many skilled construction workers roughly my age -- once well entrenched in the middle class -- now having a hard time making a living wage.

 

[OUBubba]

You're overgeneralizing, Barry.

As far as "they're all rapists, and murderers, etc." I think I'm right. They typically have jobs, have bank accounts, are documenting where they live and what they do; speak English and, because of their ciizenship status, they don't leave the US and have typically never been to their "home" country.

 

[Mr. Deez]

As far as "they're all rapists, and murderers, etc." I think I'm right. They typically have jobs, have bank accounts, are documenting where they live and what they do; speak English and, because of their ciizenship status, they don't leave the US and have typically never been to their "home" country.

I didn't say Trump didn't overgeneralize. I said that you did when you called them cream of the crop. You can both be overgeneralizing.

 

[mchammer]

I hope you realize I was making a commentary on popular media, not meaningful analysis. What the hell does careful analysis of facts have to do with anything political anymore?

FWIW, I got Crockett's facetiousness loud and clear. I thought it was pretty good. Solid A effort.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Regarding DREAMers there was an interesting discussion regarding them in On The Media this past episode. Some facts (as I remember them):

- 0.3% have committed a crime of any sort. That's well below the general population and directly contradicts Sessions statement of protecting the country from crime.
- DACA applied only to those in the country on the day the EO was signed. Anyone that has entered the country since it's signing cannot apply for DACA protection.

What's clear to me is that Trump believes in DACA, or at least its outcomes. Given his anti-immigration rantings I'm not sure how he can successfully navigate this with his base. What happens if Congress doesn't act? Immigration is near the top of the list in issues the R's in Congress can't agree on so it's likely they can't get anything done. So, Trump likely either lets it lapse (keep his base happy) or he renews it via EO. Is this simply something Bannon would say his base "don't care [about]"?

When evaluating 800k DACA participants, there are good and bad. The data shows that hispanics value education less than most ethnicity but you'll surely find rockstars and criminals to fit whatever agenda you have.

 

[nashhorn]

Illegal aliens don't come to the US to have babies who are US citizens

Not sure you can say that categorically because it absolutely does happen. From my old days living in El Paso I can attest to it. Certainly not to a scale comparable to those seeking work but it does definitely happen.

 

[Joe Fan]

A generous legal loophole in U.S. immigration laws is allowing thousands of illegal "students" to receive special visas to enter America, according to a new report on the scam.

The report found that 42 of the country's worst colleges and universities, some that aren't even accredited, are providing the needed "student" documentation to immigrants to clear immigration requirements of the Department of Homeland Security.

In the process, the mostly for-profit schools fill their classes and weak students get to come to the U.S., said the report titled, DHS Allows F-1 Visas for Students Going to Ghost Colleges.

"The very dregs of higher education in this country offer extremely poor quality education, yet still have the power to admit foreign students. Approximately 40,000 alien students are enrolled in these ‘compromised colleges,' which have all lost their accreditation from the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools (ACICS), whose standards were so low that it lost its Department of Education recognition and power to accredit," said the Center for Immigration Studies.​

 

[Mr. Deez]

- DACA applied only to those in the country on the day the EO was signed. Anyone that has entered the country since it's signing cannot apply for DACA protection.

One thing I've always wondered is how this gets determined, and I've never heard it discussed anywhere. Is the applicant's statement enough? Do they need some sort of documentation?

Given his anti-immigration rantings I'm not sure how he can successfully navigate this with his base. What happens if Congress doesn't act? Immigration is near the top of the list in issues the R's in Congress can't agree on so it's likely they can't get anything done. So, Trump likely either lets it lapse (keep his base happy) or he renews it via EO. Is this simply something Bannon would say his base "don't care [about]"?

So long as the media is demonizing him every chance they get and keeps ridiculing his base, the base will stay loyal to Trump. As for most people, this is a team sport for the base. They'll accept whatever diversion or rationalization he throws up, and on this particular issue, the media is actually helping him do it. They aren't doing it on purpose, but they are doing it.

I think Congress will act. The reason it hasn't acted on anything else is that the GOP has been divided and Democrats have been unified in opposition. That won't be the case on DREAMers. Business-friendly Republicans like Ryan and McConnell support protecting DREAMers. If they know Trump will sign the legislation (which he has signaled that he will), there's no reason why they wouldn't bring the legislation to the floor and pass it with perhaps 95 percent of Democrats and 20 or 30 percent of Republicans.

When evaluating 800k DACA participants, there are good and bad. The data shows that hispanics value education less than most ethnicity but you'll surely find rockstars and criminals to fit whatever agenda you have.

And that's why the anecdotes are unhelpful. If someone is dragging the DACA participant who is valedictorian, volunteers in soup kitchens, walks old ladies across the street, etc. in front of the camera, it's to drive a political agenda. It's not to engage the issue in good faith or with honesty. The same is true of those who bring up the DACA participant who rapes people.

And there's an obvious and easy solution to this. Let the valedictorian stay, and deport the rapist. Problem solved.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Not sure you can say that categorically because it absolutely does happen. From my old days living in El Paso I can attest to it. Certainly not to a scale comparable to those seeking work but it does definitely happen.

I'm sure it does to an extent. My point is that it generally isn't the overriding motivation. If they couldn't make dramatically money in the US, the number of people who would still come would be very low.

 

[horninchicago]

Given his anti-immigration rantings

Please do post any video you can find with this. He has said the same things that both Presidents Clinton and Obama said. You know, that this is a country of laws. That illegal immigration needs to be curtailed and a comprehensive immigration policy set in place. I'd be curious to see when Trump ever said that he is anti-immigration. And if you do find these rantings, please post the entire video of whatever speech or interview rants against legal immigration, not something chopped and edited to make it seem so.

You can disregard the proposed legislation to curb legal immigration by 50% by implementing a merit-based system of immigration as opposed to just letting anyone into our country. That is not anti-immigration, that is pro-America and protecting Americans.

 

[BrntOrngStmpeDe]

a comprehensive immigration policy set in place. .

That is a phrase I would like to see lost to history. It has always been code for amnesty and near open borders. To the politicians that use that phrase it typically just means "let's speed up the vetting process, so we don't have a backlog".

 

[Seattle Husker]

You can disregard the proposed legislation to curb legal immigration by 50% by implementing a merit-based system of immigration as opposed to just letting anyone into our country. That is not anti-immigration, that is pro-America and protecting Americans.

How nice of you to rebrand anti-immigration strategies as "pro-America" then claim the Trump's platform isn't anti-immigration. Very self-serving of your argument. In the technology sector, I'd argue Trump's immigration stance is anti-American because his policies would literally be an impediment to an economic sector that's been at the forefront of our economy for 20 years.

 

[mb227]

How nice of you to rebrand anti-immigration strategies as "pro-America" then claim the Trump's platform isn't anti-immigration. Very self-serving of your argument. In the technology sector, I'd argue Trump's immigration stance is anti-American because his policies would literally be an impediment to an economic sector that's been at the forefront of our economy for 20 years.

So just exactly how much do the 'neighbors' from the south and the ones from Syria that the left wants to foist upon the US add to the technology sector?

 

[Seattle Husker]

So just exactly how much do the 'neighbors' from the south and the ones from Syria that the left wants to foist upon the US add to the technology sector?

I've been on board with BurntOrangeStampede's e-verify push for our neighbors to the South. That's a much more sensible approach than spending $20B plus annual maintenance of 100's of millions for a wall.

Refugees? Pottery Barn approach there. We ****** up the ME royally. We owe it to the world to take our fair share of refugees. It's also in our best security interest.

 

[horninchicago]

How nice of you to rebrand anti-immigration strategies as "pro-America" then claim the Trump's platform isn't anti-immigration. Very self-serving of your argument. In the technology sector, I'd argue Trump's immigration stance is anti-American because his policies would literally be an impediment to an economic sector that's been at the forefront of our economy for 20 years.

Nice redirect and deflection. Still waiting for the Trump anti-immigration rant video.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Nice redirect and deflection. Still waiting for the Trump anti-immigration rant video.

If I thought it might actually spur a good debate I'd find some videos but you tipped your hand that defined any and all immigration-limit speeches/quotes were simply "Pro-America". Clearly consistent incendiary rhetoric by our POTUS doesn't matter to you. So, it's a waste of my time to throw up videos only for you to present excuses. Note, I'm not saying there aren't "rapists" among the illegal immigrants but rather the inference that they are anything but a minuscule minority is where Trump is clearly anti-immigrant.

With regard to the tech sector, I think Trump doesn't like that they are a leader in criticizing him and is merely thinking about reprisals when their impacts are considered in immigration changes.

 

[horninchicago]

If I thought it might actually spur a good debate I'd find some videos but you tipped your hand that defined any and all immigration-limit speeches/quotes were simply "Pro-America". Clearly consistent incendiary rhetoric by our POTUS doesn't matter to you. So, it's a waste of my time to throw up videos only for you to present excuses. Note, I'm not saying there aren't "rapists" among the illegal immigrants but rather the inference that they are anything but a minuscule minority is where Trump is clearly anti-immigrant.

With regard to the tech sector, I think Trump doesn't like that they are a leader in criticizing him and is merely thinking about reprisals when their impacts are considered in immigration changes.

You referred to Trump's anti-immigration rants. I said to post a video. So go ahead.

 

[Mr. Deez]

You referred to Trump's anti-immigration rants. I said to post a video. So go ahead.

He's going to argue that the limits on legal immigration are hostile to immigration and not favorable to the United States. You're going to argue the reverse - that those limits aren't hostile to immigration and are favorable to the United States. it's a difference of opinion and perspective.

In other words, you guys are at an impasse.

 

[horninchicago]

He's going to argue that the limits on legal immigration are hostile to immigration and not favorable to the United States. You're going to argue the reverse - that those limits aren't hostile to immigration and are favorable to the United States. it's a difference of opinion and perspective.

In other words, you guys are at an impasse.

I know. But he said anti-immigration which doesn't even imply being completely against any kind of immigration whatsoever. It simply means just that. I still would love to see a video of Trump saying he is against any kind of immigration. No, wait, ranting while saying it.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

Pelosi, along with Reps. Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and Jared Huffman, D-Calif., struggled to speak over chants of “all 11 million,” a reference to the estimated total number of undocumented immigrants currently in the country.

 

[Joe Fan]

This is their own fault. Liberals have bred such a culture of entitlement that now their own creation is becoming too powerful for them to control

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[bystander]

The wall is an argument for what needs to happen; the illegal crossings need to stop. There is a video floating around of Nancy Pelosi being heckled by young Hispanics demanding that all immigrants be given citizenship; not just the dreamers. They do not care about our border. They only care about themselves and they want more to come. That is the reality of it. They were holding signs accusing the Democrats of being deporters as if that is wrong or something. They are arrogant and will not negotiate. They will continue to support the coyotes and the pipeline is open. If you don't like the wall then the answer is NO AMNESTY PERIOD. Deportation then is the only solution. AGGRESSIVE DEPORTATION because they do not respond to anything else.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Deportation then is the only solution.

Nope, we've been talking about e-verify. If the jobs for these illegal immigrants become non-existant they'll self deport.

 

[bystander]

Nope, we've been talking about e-verify. If the jobs for these illegal immigrants become non-existant they'll self deport.

I didn't mean to be dogmatic; If that is a solution or part of the solution then by all means is should be implemented if it is not already but deportation has to be part of it in my view.|

Sorry if I'm late to the party; does e-verify cover all the people who hire illegals for work on their own home?

 

[Seattle Husker]

I didn't mean to be dogmatic; If that is a solution or part of the solution then by all means is should be implemented if it is not already but deportation has to be part of it in my view.|

Sorry if I'm late to the party; does e-verify cover all the people who hire illegals for work on their own home?

Right now, e-verify is only required for employers that fall into the government contractors bucket. Of course, that means if you sell any product or services to the Feds that you are included. For example, Starbucks is "government contractor" since they sell coffee to the Feds. Agriculture, construction and manufacturing industries are largely clear of any e-verify requirement. That's a giant loophole that is being protected by the political benefactors of these industries.

Now, handyman and landscapers that work for cash will always be the hardest to control. Make 11 million workers fight for those jobs and you'll find their aren't enough of those jobs.

Incidentally, I have a Mexican landscaper in my employ for the last 8 years. He appears legal as he goes back and forth to Mexico often as he's building a "resort" villa there. When he's gone he always had another Mexican crew do our yard that barely spoke English. I'd lay heavy money they were illegal. In the last 2 months, he now has a Caucasian man working for him. This is the first time in 8 years he hasn't had other Mexicans working for him. Maybe he's protecting himself from the risk of finding/keeping illegal immigrant workers?