America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 6 months ago by Speyside. 74 replies replies.
2 Pages<12
Is it truly a "National Emergency"?
Whistlebritches Offline
#51 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 17,662
Truth is if we abolish any and all illegal alien benefits,fine any business or individual at say 25K per illegal worker,fine any state government 25K per DL issued to an illegal alien and last but not least napalm all sanctuary cities...…..

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
frankj1 Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 28,457
Whistlebritches wrote:
Truth is if we abolish any and all illegal alien benefits,fine any business or individual at say 25K per illegal worker,fine any state government 25K per DL issued to an illegal alien and last but not least napalm all sanctuary cities...…..

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

far more effective, yes
rfenst Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 29,602
Whistlebritches wrote:
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED


Didn't Bush2 proclaim that?
LOL.
Whistlebritches Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 17,662
rfenst wrote:
Didn't Bush2 proclaim that?
LOL.


The numbnuts who thought that have never taken a ship into harms way.But they did make plenty of hay with it.
tailgater Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,455
frankj1 wrote:
the wall being turned down repeatedly shows bipartisan opposition.

I haven't done so, but have you found actual info determining an increasing problem over the decades, one that could be even close to an emergency? One growing at such an alarming rate that we need this drastic measure to protect us?

if not, than stop saying you are against the wall, , and admit you've bought the product being pitched by a master closer without researching the claims that it will make your fine delicates whiter.


I have opposed the idea of building a wall since it was introduced.
Doesn't mean I can't see some merit. I'd just prefer the virtual wall created by better policies to forbid helping fugitives (illegals).

You just can't get your head around the fact that someone who voted for Trump can openly oppose him.

Just because the Obama Religion made dissension verboten, doesn't mean it holds true for the Donald. Only those on his staff aren't allowed their own opinions.

As for a growing problem? I didn't say it's growing, but any reasonable person would conclude that it would be growing from a financial burden viewpoint.

Why should I stop saying I'm against the wall?
Why do you see it as all or nothing? By doing so, you accomplish only the latter.

delta1 Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 17,661
Trump prolly would've been able to get more funding for his wall if he had sold the idea as part of a "border security package" that also included the "virtual wall" that you and I prefer, tail...

but he's so in tune with the divisive stuff that his audience likes to hear, that he's incapable of speaking to a broader America...at an earlier stage of his presidency, he was authorized $25 billion for his wall (roughly half of the amount estimated to erect a complete barrier on the southern border) as part of a bipartisan compromise bill that included a DACA resolution, which he initially gladly accepted...

he then got roughed up by the extremists on the right, who objected to the DACA agreement, and who he now seems to answer to, and backed out of the deal...


the National Emergency is that a small extreme minority of the population is now in charge of the executive branch, the same small minority who says "the national emergency is that the President is an idiot"...
tailgater Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,455
You talk about divisive politics and hang it all on the POTUS.

The democrats in DC are calling the wall immoral.

Is it somehow less immoral when it's part of a larger overall package? (apologies to Frank)

I've been consistent on this.
If Trump wanted a wall he should have secured funding when the GOP owned the House.

But when Trump denies a $25B deal because of DACA details, one could reasonably argue that he felt he had time to get everything he wanted without the DACA deal included.
Not saying that's the case, but it's reasonable.

Speyside Offline
#58 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 8,361
Tail, I think the Democrats feel abused in that DACA was taken away and now is being offered to them. This is short sighted thinking on their part. What is, is. If they want to secure DACA and not use it as political ammunition, make the deal. But the deal needs to be a permanent one not a 3 year temporary deal. Otherwise Trump is not offering fair value.
delta1 Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 17,661
tailgater wrote:
You talk about divisive politics and hang it all on the POTUS.

The democrats in DC are calling the wall immoral.

Is it somehow less immoral when it's part of a larger overall package? (apologies to Frank)

I've been consistent on this.
If Trump wanted a wall he should have secured funding when the GOP owned the House.

But when Trump denies a $25B deal because of DACA details, one could reasonably argue that he felt he had time to get everything he wanted without the DACA deal included.
Not saying that's the case, but it's reasonable.




yea...that is extreme, and it can be construed as a response to Trump's rhetoric about funding the wall...this tit for tat is pointless and will not help with solving the problem...it just entrenches people deeper into immovable positions...

both sides should lay aside the lies and falsehoods being spread about illegal immigration and get to work on finding solutions...
DrafterX Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 89,222
you mean like illegal immigration isn't breakin the law..?? Huh
dstieger Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,336
frankj1 wrote:
totally believe any number I'm told of drugs and other horror stuff crossing the border, but the Border People say the vast majority enters through normal legal points of entry...in cars, buses, etc.


This statement has always perplexed me. Does someone really know where most of the drugs cross our borders? If so, how?

I got no problem with more better walls. But not the national emergency. Precedent is surely a problem for me. I am also concerned about where the money is being diverted from. $3+Billion in Milcon isn't chump change. What projects that military needs are now defunded? And what other stuff suffers?
I just detest the all consuming politics of this all.

Trump ran on the wall. Trump won. He should have gotten a wall. Elections and consequences and all that. IMO, Dems have been pretty transparent that the only reason to deny him a wall was political poturing....nothing to do with border security or immigration, simply to deny Trump. Now Dems and Trump both claim victory over the wall....but all the people of this country not working in the Capitol and the White House lose.
delta1 Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 17,661
seems obvious, dstieger, but Obama won...by a much larger proportion of the population and bigger number of electoral votes, and got total opposition from the GOP from day one...

so winning elections and having consequences has already been turned on its head...there should NOT be a Justice Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS...there should be a Justice Garland...

new rules about politics seem to have been adopted by the GOP ...Dems are playing by the new rules now...bipartisanship is out of fashion...nobody cares about the Americans on the other side...

I heard an interesting piece on NPR about Newt Gingrich being the first to practice "scorched earth" politics on the national stage...he helped to get a lot of moderate GOP members of the House voted out of office...those were the guys who were willing to cut deals across the aisle in the name of helping most Americans...that type is few and far between...

we all will lose and America will be diminished if we continue to play by these rules...
DrafterX Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 89,222
Gloom.. Despair.. and agony on me.... Laugh
frankj1 Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 28,457
dstieger wrote:
This statement has always perplexed me. Does someone really know where most of the drugs cross our borders? If so, how?

I got no problem with more better walls. But not the national emergency. Precedent is surely a problem for me. I am also concerned about where the money is being diverted from. $3+Billion in Milcon isn't chump change. What projects that military needs are now defunded? And what other stuff suffers?
I just detest the all consuming politics of this all.

Trump ran on the wall. Trump won. He should have gotten a wall. Elections and consequences and all that. IMO, Dems have been pretty transparent that the only reason to deny him a wall was political poturing....nothing to do with border security or immigration, simply to deny Trump. Now Dems and Trump both claim victory over the wall....but all the people of this country not working in the Capitol and the White House lose.

but Trump forgot to say "Read my lips" when he ran...
Speyside Offline
#65 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 8,361
According to the Pew research center as of 2016 there were 2,550,000 lillegal aliens in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas. This is approximately 25% of the illegal aliens in the United States. This does not account for the illegal aliens that crossed the southern border and migrated to other states. I do not think the national emergency will be upheld in court, but I think those numbers bear out we have an emergency at our southern border. 12.5% of our states hold 25% of the illegal aliens. The inordinate number of illegal aliens in those 4 states certainly points to the need for far better security at our southern border.
dstieger Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,336
Delta, I won't disagree. So, your point is, "they did it first".
JK...sorta....I was one of the bigger critics of Tea Party obstructionism....not sure I had much awareness of Newt inventing the tactics
dstieger Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,336
Spey, how many came across illegally? Versus how many came legally and over-stayed, or violated terms of there stay?
Speyside Offline
#68 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 8,361
Dave, I have no idea. But I think the numbers are not an anomaly. Such a statistically large percentage of illegal aliens in those 4 border states would indicate there should be a correlation. The Pew report only gave raw numbers, no additional break down. Are you aware of anywhere that gives that type of breakdown?
dstieger Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,336
Nope. Just seemed to have been a recurring talking point that most illegals are overstayers....no clue on the data, and less than no clue if the national ratio data correlates well to those 4 states
dstieger Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,336
I just think that it is probably important data....since walls wouldn't stop those who enter leagally.....so big numbers get smaller ...quickly
Speyside Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 8,361
A quick search produced a fact check that 1/3 of illegal aliens cross the southern border. So as of 2016 if this % is correct proximetly 3,500,000 had crossed the southern border. Is that a national emergency? Probably not. Is it an emergency? Certainly for our southern border states it is. So lets do a little math. Roughly 865,000 illegal aliens in those states crossed the southern border. What type of burden does this put on the tax payers of those states? Certainly the costs of education and medical care. I honestly do not know what other benefits illegal aliens are able to get. There would also be significant costs associated with our legal and penal systems.
Speyside Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 8,361
Oh, the fact checker was CBS.
tailgater Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 23,455
delta1 wrote:
yea...that is extreme, and it can be construed as a response to Trump's rhetoric about funding the wall...this tit for tat is pointless and will not help with solving the problem...it just entrenches people deeper into immovable positions...

both sides should lay aside the lies and falsehoods being spread about illegal immigration and get to work on finding solutions...


I agree it's both sides.
And there is no need for hyperbole when talking about illegal immigration. It continues to happen in staggering numbers and it costs us billions.
The left claim they want it to end, but simultaneously call conservatives racist for saying the same thing.
Now they've embrace the "immoral" tag and feel that their resistance is somehow justified because...Trump.

DACA is a debacle. It's amnesty for the children of cheaters. It's not fair to punish these kids and young adults, but it wasn't America who put them in their predicament. And it's not fair to the millions who try to come here through legal methods, whether from our southern border or elsewhere.

I'd gladly pass on a wall if cities would stop announcing a sanctuary status. When bleeding hearts stopped railing against local law enforcement who partner with ICE to identify resident status on people arrested for other crimes.
But this is happening more and more.

So both sides are wrong in how they play their hand, but in my opinion the conservative viewpoint on this matter is more in tune with keeping our laws intact.

Just one man's opinion.
Speyside Offline
#74 Posted:
Joined: 03-16-2015
Posts: 8,361
There is no reason for a city to aid criminals. All federal money should be pulled from any cities that do. At a minimum the mayor of each sanctuary city should be charged with aiding and abetting.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages<12