Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > General Forum > Opinions & Editorials
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Opinions & Editorials Discuss On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones at the General Forum; A very well thought out argument for the wall money: Democratic leaders are negotiating in bad faith, against good policy, ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 01-03-2019, 02:43 AM
saltwn's Avatar
PW Enlightenment
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Esto perpetua
Posts: 88,604
Thanks: 57,250
Thanked 26,916 Times in 19,358 Posts
Send a message via AIM to saltwn Send a message via MSN to saltwn Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

A very well thought out argument for the wall money:

Quote:
Democratic leaders are negotiating in bad faith, against good policy, and to lamentable results in the current border-wall-funding theater on Capitol Hill.

Set aside for now the realities that President Trump has played his pro-wall poker hand incredibly ineptly, that conservatives in general have badly overstated the relative importance of immigration-related policy, and that the Trumpian Right has cultishly turned “The Wall” into an item of absurdly talismanic significance. Those contentions can be handled in another column.

For now, what matters is that Democrats are refusing to vote for a funding bill otherwise to their liking, and thus shutting down about one-sixth of the government, for the sake not of principle but of cynical politics. They know border control of some sort is an important element of sovereignty. They know physical barriers work. They know Trump’s requested $5 billion is not exorbitant and can be spent effectively. And they at least pretend to believe that shutting down large parts of the federal government actually hurts people.



Barone's Guide to Government: Recess appointments
Watch Full Screen to Skip Ads
Other columns have amply demonstrated that many key Democrats have hypocritically changed their positions, without real explanations, on the importance of border security and the utility of walls as part of the mix. They have acknowledged that stopping illegal immigration is important in the fights against crime, illegal narcotics, and terrorism. They have said it is crucial to “get tough” against illegal crossings, and they were right.

Back before the boogeyman of Trump appeared, the argument among serious Democrats wasn’t whether border walls were good policy, but where. There are many spots along the Mexican border where a wall is less practical (if at all) than others, for reasons of cost, topography, or ecology. Democrats said it would be foolish to try to wall the whole border — but admitted that in some places, such as San Diego, walls work.

The total cost for a wall across the entire border is at least $20 billion (and as much as $50 billion).The $5 billion at issue in the current budget fight could easily be spent in areas where almost everybody says walls can be effective. The substantive fight over the next $15 billion-plus could come later. In truth, there is little substance, but only political symbolism, in the Democrats’ fight today.

If Democrats truly believe shutting down one-sixth of the government hurts people, they should compromise to avoid causing such pain. It is they, after all — not Republicans — who say almost all current government activity is essential for civic health.

The obvious solution is for them to offer Trump something on the order of $4 billion for the wall right now but ask that the other $1 billion be spent for expedited processing of, or better acculturation services for, legal immigrants. They could actually try to solve a problem, rather than cynically manipulating the situation for political gain.

The fact is that Trump won a presidential election by attracting enough voters in enough states, perfectly according to the Constitution, while making a border wall the single most recognizable plank of what passed for his political platform. Elections have consequences. There was a time when both sides recognized this, for the greater good. Democrats should do so now.

Give Trump a part of his shiny new wall. Democrats will control the House for the next two years and can deny him any more wall funding for the rest of his term. But for now, for areas they themselves know full well that a wall can be of use in: Provide some money, reopen the government, and help restore the public’s faith in the workability of our constitutional system.
article is from the
soon to be defunct on partisan grounds Washington Examiner
__________________
Hello, You!
Happy Christmas!
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 01-21-2019, 10:39 AM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,076
Thanks: 11,340
Thanked 15,674 Times in 8,415 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Congress passed legislation in 2006 to build the wall. $50 Billion. However, they cleverly never allocated the money. Since then we have had several unfunded legislations for immigration reform, including a wall. Nothing ever funded.

Since Reagan was fooled by the Democrats back in the 8o's, the politicians on both sides, have promised to solve the immigration crisis. They pass legislation after legislation without funding and call it "hard work." Without money nothing gets it done. Clever politicians pulled one over on us. Again and again. Burt Reynolds once did it in a movie, more than once. "Can you say The Longest Yard."

Trump doesn't need Congress to legislate authority for a wall. He is simply asking for 10% of the money promised over 12 years ago. Why is this even an issue?

Mexico is looking at us and saying " You guys cannot pass a law that demands we fund it." So Trump's foolish campaign rhetoric aside, we are going to have to do it ourselves.

Or lose our sovereignty.


Our sovereignty is not something with which to trifle over egos. That approach is stupid, ignorant and frankly dangerous.

For this nonsense, some 800,000 government workers are going with out pay. And Americans are at risk. America is at risk.

Build the damn wall.

I predict President Trump will hold his ground until January 29th. At which point he will open the government and simultaneously declare a national emergency. All from a State of the Union address given from right on the border. Behind him should be video screens depicting the caravans and it's members throwing rocks as they assaulted the border wall in Southern California.

Take a page from the advertisers for home security systems. Nothing makes the point better than a video of thieves trying to break in.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE

Last edited by FrancSevin; 01-21-2019 at 10:51 AM..
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 01-21-2019, 01:05 PM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,316 Times in 1,842 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Not being a Democrat I don't know what they'd accept but I think I know what most Americans would accept.

First reopen government by allowing the Senate to vote on the funding resolutions passed by the House. Government workers should not be held hostage for partisan reasons on any legislative issue.

Then I'd propose the following "compromise" to what Trump proposed.

1. Trump Proposal: $805 million for drug detection technology to help secure our ports of entry. YES - 90% of illegal drugs coming into the United States are through US ports of entry and not by people smuggling them in across the border.
2. Trump Proposal: An additional 2,750 border agents and law enforcement professionals. YES - Boots on the ground are the most effective way to stop illegal immigration into the United States. Part of these additional border agents, perhaps as much as 50%, need to be assigned to our Northern border where there is a real threat of terrorists entering the United States according to the DHS.
3. Trump Proposal: 75 new immigration judge teams to reduce the court backlog (of almost 900,000 cases). YES - There was a backlog of 500,000 cases when Trump took office and we need to dramatically reduce the adjudication time for anyone incarcerated waiting for trial to less than six month as well as reducing the time for asylum hearings.
4. NEW: End the mass arrest policies of ICE and prioritize criminal aliens that threated persons or property and recent unlawful immigrants into the United States (follow the Obama priorities). It's been the ICE mass arrest policy that's increased the backlog of cases from 500,000 when Trump took office to almost 900,000 today).
5. NEW: Add funding for additional staff to process refugee asylum applications so that 400 applications can be processed per day. According to the Administration it's been a lack of staff members that's only allowed 100 or less to be processed per day and that's caused the huge backlog of refugees being stuck in Mexico and to an increase by refugees unlawfully entering the United States. According to the Border Patrol today roughly 80% of those unlawfully entering the United States are parents with children seeking to apply for asylum. Let's take care of that at the US ports of entry and that cuts unlawful border crossings by 80%. That's far superior to a physical barrier and is far less expensive.
6. NEW: Provide full funding and reinstate the Family Case Management Program that assigned case workers it asylum applicants and increase Refugee visas for those applying at a US port of entry to 100,000 per year. Under the highly successful Family Case Management Program the case workers helped the asylum seekers to find resources such as charity based legal counsel, housing, employment and other non-government funded assistance. Most important was that they made sure those seeking asylum appeared in court when their case was to be heard. This cost the US government $36/day per asylum case and was effective in ensuring that virtually 100% of those that entered the United States and sought asylum showed up for their hearings by the immigration courts. It was the solution to the "catch and release" of those seeking asylum that kept families together while also ensuring that those granted temporary residency would show up in court ready to present their case. This program was canceled by ICE in 2017 where they cited the cost of $36/day was too expensive.
7. Trump Proposal: three years of legislative relief for 700,000 DACA recipients brought here unlawfully by their parents at a young age many years ago. REJECTED - Replaced by Proposal 9
8. Trump Proposal: a three-year extension of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS. REJECTED - Replaced by Proposal 9
9. NEW: Permanent residency status for up to 400,000 people per year for individuals (or households) that have resided in the United States for more than five years, that have committed no crimes against persons or property, and that is a member of a working household paying local, state, and/or federal taxes. A prioritized system will be established by law that includes those that were brought into the United States as children that violated no laws, for those allowed to be in the United States under the TPS laws, for individuals married to American citizens or that have children that are American citizens and other categories as determined by law. For those that are undocumented an fine of up to $5,000 may be imposed at the discretion of the immigration courts.

The Biggie - The WALL


10. Trump Proposal: add another 230 miles this year in the areas our border agents most urgently need. YES - Conditionally based upon Congressional approval of a proposal to be submitted by the Department of Homeland Security establishing where this 230 miles of physical barrier is to be constructed similar to 2006 where the following was provided to Congress.

Quote:
The Secure Fence Act was a law introduced by Republican Congressman Peter King of New York in September 2006 and signed by President George W. Bush on 26 October 2006. Among other provisions, the law required the Secretary of Homeland Security to begin (within 18 months) the construction of at least two layers of fencing, along with barriers, cameras, and sensors, along five sections of the United States border with Mexico:
From 10 miles west to 10 miles east of the Tecate, California port of entry
From 10 miles west of the Calexico, California port of entry to 5 miles east of the Douglas, Arizona port of entry
From 5 miles west of the Columbus, New Mexico port of entry to 10 miles east of El Paso, Texas
From 5 miles northwest of the Del Rio, Texas port of entry to 5 miles southeast of the Eagle Pass, Texas port of entry
From 15 miles northwest of the Laredo, Texas port of entry to the Brownsville, Texas port of entry
Additionally the design definition of the physical barrier (fence) would need to be submitted to Congress for approval if different from the current design as well as other security features that will be employed along this 230 mile stretch of border with Mexico.

The proposal must also have an approved environmental impact study, it must comply with the Endangered Species Act. and it must identify any privately owned real estate where the proposed fence (barrier) is to go and a study on what percentage of private land owners are willing to sell their land to the government and what percentage will fight the taking of their land under imminent domain laws.

The actual funding will be based upon the Corp of Engineers estimated $1.3 million per mile plus additional costs of land acquisition, studies, and administrative costs.

********************

I think I've pretty much covered what Trump was concerned with.

Illegal drugs entering the country are covered by improved port of entry measures.
The humanitarian crisis caused by the backlog of refugees waiting to enter the US is solved.
Roughly 80% of the illegal border crossings stop because these refugees seeking asylum will be processed through a port of entry in a reasonable amount of time.
More boots on the ground of border patrol agents that have far fewer illegal crossings to deal with.
Reducing the backlog waiting for immigration court hearings by adding more courts and prioritizing enforcement so that non-criminal aliens are clogging up the system.
Reduction in the number of asylum seekers on US soil because we'll deal with them as refugees at a US port of entry which will also reduce the problem of inadequate detention facilities.
DACA (and DAPA) and TPS problems solved along ending the splitting up of families where an undocumented person is married to a US citizen and/or has US citizen children.
A reasonable prioritization for immigration law enforcement where criminal aliens and recent arrivals that haven't established roots in the United States are the highest priority for deportation.

I like it.





No more separation of children from their parents
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 01-21-2019, 02:35 PM
jamesrage's Avatar
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: A place where common sense still exist.
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,740
Thanks: 2,634
Thanked 2,830 Times in 1,648 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
Congress passed legislation in 2006 to build the wall. $50 Billion. However, they cleverly never allocated the money. Since then we have had several unfunded legislations for immigration reform, including a wall. Nothing ever funded.

Since Reagan was fooled by the Democrats back in the 8o's, the politicians on both sides, have promised to solve the immigration crisis.

I don't think Reagan was fooled. If you listen to this clip you can see that Reagan wasn't anti-illegal immigration. I think he knew full well the border wasn't going to be adequately secured and that any border enforcement would be reneged on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=YsmgPp_nlok
__________________
"There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag… We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language… and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people.”—Theodore Roosevelt
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 01-21-2019, 03:05 PM
RightofCenterLeftofCrazy
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Idaho
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,100
Thanks: 65
Thanked 1,072 Times in 557 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
... 90% of illegal drugs coming into the United States are through US ports of entry and not by people smuggling them in across the border.
How do you know this? Seriously, have we got someone tallying up all the drugs at the port of entry but letting them through anyway? I can't in any way fathom, how anyone could possibly know this.

You could say... 90% of the drugs we stop from coming into the country are at the US ports of entry. But that doesn't necessarily mean that 90% coming in come through the ports of entry. It could just be incredibly easier to detect and stop drugs at the ports of entry than it is elsewhere.
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Zenock For This Useful Post:
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 01-21-2019, 04:12 PM
FrancSevin's Avatar
Runs with scissors
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: St Louis MO
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,076
Thanks: 11,340
Thanked 15,674 Times in 8,415 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenock View Post
How do you know this? Seriously, have we got someone tallying up all the drugs at the port of entry but letting them through anyway? I can't in any way fathom, how anyone could possibly know this.

You could say... 90% of the drugs we stop from coming into the country are at the US ports of entry. But that doesn't necessarily mean that 90% coming in come through the ports of entry. It could just be incredibly easier to detect and stop drugs at the ports of entry than it is elsewhere.
Odd how some cannot, or will not, fathom this.

Like standing at a stoplight and saying 90% of the drivers who run a red light get caught, so therefore we know that only 10% of drivers blow a stop sign.

Is this true or not? We simply don't know.

What we do know is that systems designed for inspection/interdiction at border crossings do catch drugs. How many drugs are caught in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no impedance?

A better estimate could be made from the number of bodies of drug users who OD.
__________________
I am going to hang a Batman Costume in my closet. .......... Just to screw with myself when I get alzheimer's.
sola gratia, sola fide, sola scriptura.

I AM NOT A REPUBLICAN, I AM A FREEMAN, THE DEMOCRATS WORST NIGHTMARE
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:25 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 20,571
Thanks: 14,349
Thanked 15,701 Times in 8,972 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
Not being a Democrat I don't know what they'd accept but I think I know what most Americans would accept.

First reopen government by allowing the Senate to vote on the funding resolutions passed by the House. Government workers should not be held hostage for partisan reasons on any legislative issue.

Then I'd propose the following "compromise" to what Trump proposed.

1. Trump Proposal: $805 million for drug detection technology to help secure our ports of entry. YES - 90% of illegal drugs coming into the United States are through US ports of entry and not by people smuggling them in across the border.
2. Trump Proposal: An additional 2,750 border agents and law enforcement professionals. YES - Boots on the ground are the most effective way to stop illegal immigration into the United States. Part of these additional border agents, perhaps as much as 50%, need to be assigned to our Northern border where there is a real threat of terrorists entering the United States according to the DHS.
3. Trump Proposal: 75 new immigration judge teams to reduce the court backlog (of almost 900,000 cases). YES - There was a backlog of 500,000 cases when Trump took office and we need to dramatically reduce the adjudication time for anyone incarcerated waiting for trial to less than six month as well as reducing the time for asylum hearings.
4. NEW: End the mass arrest policies of ICE and prioritize criminal aliens that threated persons or property and recent unlawful immigrants into the United States (follow the Obama priorities). It's been the ICE mass arrest policy that's increased the backlog of cases from 500,000 when Trump took office to almost 900,000 today).
5. NEW: Add funding for additional staff to process refugee asylum applications so that 400 applications can be processed per day. According to the Administration it's been a lack of staff members that's only allowed 100 or less to be processed per day and that's caused the huge backlog of refugees being stuck in Mexico and to an increase by refugees unlawfully entering the United States. According to the Border Patrol today roughly 80% of those unlawfully entering the United States are parents with children seeking to apply for asylum. Let's take care of that at the US ports of entry and that cuts unlawful border crossings by 80%. That's far superior to a physical barrier and is far less expensive.
6. NEW: Provide full funding and reinstate the Family Case Management Program that assigned case workers it asylum applicants and increase Refugee visas for those applying at a US port of entry to 100,000 per year. Under the highly successful Family Case Management Program the case workers helped the asylum seekers to find resources such as charity based legal counsel, housing, employment and other non-government funded assistance. Most important was that they made sure those seeking asylum appeared in court when their case was to be heard. This cost the US government $36/day per asylum case and was effective in ensuring that virtually 100% of those that entered the United States and sought asylum showed up for their hearings by the immigration courts. It was the solution to the "catch and release" of those seeking asylum that kept families together while also ensuring that those granted temporary residency would show up in court ready to present their case. This program was canceled by ICE in 2017 where they cited the cost of $36/day was too expensive.
7. Trump Proposal: three years of legislative relief for 700,000 DACA recipients brought here unlawfully by their parents at a young age many years ago. REJECTED - Replaced by Proposal 9
8. Trump Proposal: a three-year extension of Temporary Protected Status, or TPS. REJECTED - Replaced by Proposal 9
9. NEW: Permanent residency status for up to 400,000 people per year for individuals (or households) that have resided in the United States for more than five years, that have committed no crimes against persons or property, and that is a member of a working household paying local, state, and/or federal taxes. A prioritized system will be established by law that includes those that were brought into the United States as children that violated no laws, for those allowed to be in the United States under the TPS laws, for individuals married to American citizens or that have children that are American citizens and other categories as determined by law. For those that are undocumented an fine of up to $5,000 may be imposed at the discretion of the immigration courts.

The Biggie - The WALL


10. Trump Proposal: add another 230 miles this year in the areas our border agents most urgently need. YES - Conditionally based upon Congressional approval of a proposal to be submitted by the Department of Homeland Security establishing where this 230 miles of physical barrier is to be constructed similar to 2006 where the following was provided to Congress.



Additionally the design definition of the physical barrier (fence) would need to be submitted to Congress for approval if different from the current design as well as other security features that will be employed along this 230 mile stretch of border with Mexico.

The proposal must also have an approved environmental impact study, it must comply with the Endangered Species Act. and it must identify any privately owned real estate where the proposed fence (barrier) is to go and a study on what percentage of private land owners are willing to sell their land to the government and what percentage will fight the taking of their land under imminent domain laws.

The actual funding will be based upon the Corp of Engineers estimated $1.3 million per mile plus additional costs of land acquisition, studies, and administrative costs.

********************

I think I've pretty much covered what Trump was concerned with.

Illegal drugs entering the country are covered by improved port of entry measures.
The humanitarian crisis caused by the backlog of refugees waiting to enter the US is solved.
Roughly 80% of the illegal border crossings stop because these refugees seeking asylum will be processed through a port of entry in a reasonable amount of time.
More boots on the ground of border patrol agents that have far fewer illegal crossings to deal with.
Reducing the backlog waiting for immigration court hearings by adding more courts and prioritizing enforcement so that non-criminal aliens are clogging up the system.
Reduction in the number of asylum seekers on US soil because we'll deal with them as refugees at a US port of entry which will also reduce the problem of inadequate detention facilities.
DACA (and DAPA) and TPS problems solved along ending the splitting up of families where an undocumented person is married to a US citizen and/or has US citizen children.
A reasonable prioritization for immigration law enforcement where criminal aliens and recent arrivals that haven't established roots in the United States are the highest priority for deportation.

I like it.





No more separation of children from their parents

I will not labor through all points presented only the most unworkable ones.

The process for new fencing or a wall, barriers of some kind is designed to fail. House Democrats will insure the Congressional approvals will not be forthcoming or funding will not be available so they can campaign on Trump failing to keep his campaign promise.

Using the Keystone pipeline as a proxy we find that Obama ignored years of studies and public comments to suspend the project indefinitely. All it took was filing a lawsuit to grind the process to a halt. Any excuse will do.

Hiring more immigration judges will require more taxpayer provided attorneys activists to carry out legal proceedings until the "immigrant" wins. The new court rooms would become just as clogged as the current ones thanks to waves of new caravans inspired by the free for all.

A simple reform to the asylum laws prohibiting applications by people illegally entering US territory would alleviate the backlog in short order. Legislating to overcome the arbitrary court order prohibiting holding minor children for more than 20 days will discourage the scam of dragging them on the perilous journey across Mexico.

Rewarding DACA participants with permanent resident status simply encourages the next wave of illegal immigration. There is no question the definition of law abiding will be corrupted to overlook identity theft, driving without license or insurance, working illegally, and tax evasion to name a few. In addition so-called nonviolent crimes such as DWI will not disqualify applicants.

Overall the proposal is the same old Democrat con, amnesty and open borders now for the promise of border security in the future.
__________________
If Democrats were confident their nominee actually received more than 80 million votes they wouldn't have more troops occupying Washington, DC than Lincoln had defending the city during the Civil War. Not Joe Biden, Kim Jung Biden.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:31 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,316 Times in 1,842 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenock View Post
How do you know this? Seriously, have we got someone tallying up all the drugs at the port of entry but letting them through anyway? I can't in any way fathom, how anyone could possibly know this.

You could say... 90% of the drugs we stop from coming into the country are at the US ports of entry. But that doesn't necessarily mean that 90% coming in come through the ports of entry. It could just be incredibly easier to detect and stop drugs at the ports of entry than it is elsewhere.
Quote:
According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection statistics, 90 percent of heroin seized along the border, 88 percent of cocaine, 87 percent of methamphetamine, and 80 percent of fentanyl in the first 11 months of the 2018 fiscal year was caught trying to be smuggled in at legal crossing points.
https://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ll/2591279002/

The source is U.S. Customs and Border Protection and yes, it's an estimate based upon the intercepted drugs coming across the border and it could be off but it's the best method possible for estimating how much is entering the United States, from where, and how it enters.

We can always play hypotheticals. What if all of the drugs being smuggled into the United States are being intercepted by authorities. Then we have zero illegal drugs being successfully smuggled into the United States from Mexico right now and a problem doesn't exist at all.

I go by the government's estimates and others like Trump can just pull "S**t" out of their A$$,
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2019, 09:34 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,316 Times in 1,842 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by FrancSevin View Post
A better estimate could be made from the number of bodies of drug users who OD.
More die from prescription opioids than from heroin and we know that because the autopsy reveals the type of drug that resulted in death.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 01-22-2019, 10:23 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,429
Thanks: 1,492
Thanked 2,316 Times in 1,842 Posts
Default Re: On ‘wall’ fight, Democrats are the cynical ones

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
I will not labor through all points presented only the most unworkable ones.

The process for new fencing or a wall, barriers of some kind is designed to fail. House Democrats will insure the Congressional approvals will not be forthcoming or funding will not be available so they can campaign on Trump failing to keep his campaign promise.

Using the Keystone pipeline as a proxy we find that Obama ignored years of studies and public comments to suspend the project indefinitely. All it took was filing a lawsuit to grind the process to a halt. Any excuse will do.

Hiring more immigration judges will require more taxpayer provided attorneys activists to carry out legal proceedings until the "immigrant" wins. The new court rooms would become just as clogged as the current ones thanks to waves of new caravans inspired by the free for all.

A simple reform to the asylum laws prohibiting applications by people illegally entering US territory would alleviate the backlog in short order. Legislating to overcome the arbitrary court order prohibiting holding minor children for more than 20 days will discourage the scam of dragging them on the perilous journey across Mexico.

Rewarding DACA participants with permanent resident status simply encourages the next wave of illegal immigration. There is no question the definition of law abiding will be corrupted to overlook identity theft, driving without license or insurance, working illegally, and tax evasion to name a few. In addition so-called nonviolent crimes such as DWI will not disqualify applicants.

Overall the proposal is the same old Democrat con, amnesty and open borders now for the promise of border security in the future.
My proposal was not a "Democratic" proposal but instead is based upon what I believe Democrats would support based upon their historical bipartisan support for improving border security and our immigration laws.

Democrats have supported bipartisan solutions to improvements in border security that have included physical barriers (fencing) in the past but it has to be a specific proposal by experts in border security and not some "pie-in-the-sky" campaign promise that's undefined.

The Keystone Pipeline is not a good example. The court order followed a change in the route the pipeline would take that had not been subjected to an environmental impact study in compliance with the law.

An asylum applicant does not receive any government provided legal assistance and they're not entitled to representation by an attorney. The most significant problem we have with our asylum program is that the process should not be an adversarial process. Instead of the government's attorney trying to deny permanent asylum status the government's attorney should be trying to justify asylum for the applicant. In making it adversarial there's a compelling argument that the asylum seeker should be granted a right to counsel.

The need for more immigration judges, courtrooms, and staff is driven by the increase in the arrests under Trump's mass arrest directions to ICE. Selective prosecution to match the ability of the existing court system to process the cases would eliminate the actual need for more courts. Even the Obama administration was exceeding the capacity of the courts to adjudicate the number of cases and the criteria for arrests should have been reduced to match the ability of the court to adjudicate the cases.

This has little to do with those seeking asylum because their cases aren't urgent because they're not incarcerated. The problem is when the delay takes years because the asylum seeker establishes social and economic roots in the United States that it would be unjust to severe as time passes.

There's no "reward" for those covered by DACA because they never violated any US law in being in the United States. It's an injustice to severe a person's family, social, and economic connections to the United States that establish them as an American that have developed over the years. It's certainly unjust to do that over a minor misdemeanor that a failure to have documentation to be in the United States represents.

Allowing refugees seeking asylum to apply and be allowed lawfully into the United States within one week of arriving at a US port of entry would eliminate the unlawful crossing of our border to apply for asylum. This would leave only those that entered the United States lawfully and are lawfully in the United States or that have had their visa authorization expire to apply for asylum on US soil.

Allowing a Congressionally authorized and limited number of refugees to enter the United States based upon applications for asylum does not represent open borders. At the most historically it's only allowed about 100,000 refugees into the United States and 100,000 people are easily assimilated into our American way of life and they're highly beneficial to the US economy. We don't typically have that many refugees showing up and asking for asylum. In 2018 I believe the number was well less than 50,000 and perhaps as low as 30,000. We could have allowed all of them in under our Refugee and Immigration laws and it would not have represented an "open border" policy.

Before anything else the shutdown needs to end. Trump is responsible for the shutdown that now seriously harming our economy as well as our national security.

End the shutdown and then a bipartisan solution on border security and immigration can be achieved based upon the will of the American people.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
are, cynical, democrats, fight, ones, the, ‘wall’

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0