|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 05 2017 01:45 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 19:41 Acrofales wrote:On September 04 2017 02:30 Jockmcplop wrote:
Great idea!
When the US economy crashes he can just blame Obama.
The man's a genius. For starters, that's China. The USA's largest trade partner (as a single country, 2nd if we count the EU as a single unity). I'm sure that will work well! Trumps good at making himself look weak and stupid.
Would for sure lead to complete collapse of semiconductor manufacturing in the US. Good lord
|
Canada11349 Posts
@zlefin
You really don't like making this easy do you? I've indicated multiple times that I'm having a hard time seeing what your points are, but rather than clarify, you keep insisting that you made points and whatever I'm saying, I'm missing the point, whatever the point is.
I've gone back ten pages, and I've filtered your name trying to find your points, but the discussion wasn't very long and you really didn't have many posts directly related to it.
I jumped in with this:
And you immediately replied that I had missed your points.
The only of your posts prior to my post related to TPP that I could find is this:
On September 04 2017 06:10 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 05:54 Sermokala wrote:
Anyone who supported TPP in the form that DJT killed is an idiot. It would have removed the sovereignty of every nation involved and raise international corporations to the status of nation states able to change the laws of other nations in court and get all the money they think they should have made on top. It would have started an economic war in all of Asia between China and the union states for who can expoit the nations more and better. Some of these corporations would be directly controlled by said nation states and would have made things even worse. Any advances China get will be incredibly hampered until they figure out what exactly they want with the SCS and how to get the nations around them to acept it. Something the US is happy to delay as long as possible.
Yes straight scrapping the deal was bad but accepting it in any of its current form was much worse. If it was to any of a degree to be smart not to it would have involved a complete restart on the basics of what the trade deal would look like.
Its okay to admit a broken clock strikes correct twice. Or that Trumps only possible success's in office are as a result of his ignorance or incompetence. I'm not an idiot; I slightly supported the TPP as it was. Therefore I conclude that your claim is false. also, you're ignoring the evidence put forth in the past several pages on the topic; do you have a refutation for those points? i'm being generous in asking such; as your nonsense about sovereignty is grounds enough to conclude you're spouting stuff on which you have no understanding and minimal knowledge, and are only spouting talking points you've heard without ever looking at them deeply enough. but i'll give you a chance to demonstrate otherwise before finalizing a conclusion. and while this may seem a little rude; your accusation of idiocy was as well, especially since it's so unjustified.
What points are you arguing here except to point to someone else's posts and to say that you are being generous in not assuming that Serm is spouting off?
Sovereignty "The authority of a state to govern itself or another state; a self-governing state." What am I misusing?
Kwark argued that these agreements are more self-imposed, not an external force. But I don't know if that's so obvious anymore when you consider how large international corporations have gotten in comparison to smaller countries. (Example- Tobacco companies vs the third world.)
|
I was gone for a while but wow. TPP was a far left initiative displays a woeful lack of understanding of both the global and US political landscape.
Also it wasn't some recent thing.
Here's Bernie railing against NAFTA in 1993
https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4545276/rep-bernie-sanders-nafta-hearing
Bernie actually has a long history of saying "Don't do this, these bad things will happen" then everyone ignores him and calls him crazy and then it happens and everyone claims we couldn't have seen it coming.
|
On September 04 2017 20:58 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 13:23 Slaughter wrote:On September 04 2017 12:02 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2017 11:17 Tachion wrote:On September 04 2017 11:01 Nevuk wrote:President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises.
Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. He has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program and struggled with his own misgivings about targeting minors for deportation.
Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.
In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”
Trump is expected to announce his decision on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning, according to a source close to the administration. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301 It sounds like there is bipartisan support in congress for giving these people some sort of legal status. It would be a bit funny if congress ends up passing a bill that Trump has to sign after repealing the program. Or is that the intent to begin with? Hard for me to tell. This is what I've been trying to tell people. Amnesty of some form is inches from their fingertips, assuming they can stop for 3 seconds and agree to rigorous border security. But a certain party absolutely refuses, either because of stupidity or because they think that they need to import more voters later on. The entire Democrat party and at least half of the GOP want amnesty not just for "dreamers" but for every illegal immigrant. If you can actually provide evidence that "rigorous border security" isn't a huge waste of money, time, and man power then perhaps people would support it more. We've been down that path before; whenever anyone brings up stuff like the War on Drugs and right-to-work/labor pool problems or other policy areas where border security is implicated, all anyone like Introvert can talk about is how they can't believe a large portion of people are opposed to attempts at turning the US-Mexico border into Checkpoint Charlie. It's almost as though "fiscal conservatism" turns into something else when it needs to justify wasting billions on hopelessly stupid projects ostensibly designed to better control those wily foreigners trying to come here.
On September 04 2017 21:44 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 12:02 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2017 11:17 Tachion wrote:On September 04 2017 11:01 Nevuk wrote:President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises.
Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. He has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program and struggled with his own misgivings about targeting minors for deportation.
Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.
In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”
Trump is expected to announce his decision on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning, according to a source close to the administration. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301 It sounds like there is bipartisan support in congress for giving these people some sort of legal status. It would be a bit funny if congress ends up passing a bill that Trump has to sign after repealing the program. Or is that the intent to begin with? Hard for me to tell. This is what I've been trying to tell people. Amnesty of some form is inches from their fingertips, assuming they can stop for 3 seconds and agree to rigorous border security. But a certain party absolutely refuses, either because of stupidity or because they think that they need to import more voters later on. The entire Democrat party and at least half of the GOP want amnesty not just for "dreamers" but for every illegal immigrant. that sounds like partisan-hating nonsense to me. and the case for dreamers is pretty good regardless of the more general issues with immigration. at any rate: what would constitute "rigorous border security". I.e. how would we know when we have achieved it? cuz a politician will always be able to argue that the security is insufficient, and it's not possible to prevent all illegal entry. so having a defined standard is necessary for such a deal. can you specify such a standard?
I understand it's easier when the left's position is "the only problem is how so many people want in but we won't let them." But the standard has always been rigorous border security. We can quibble about what that means, but I think it means a security and internal enforcement system that doesn't allow 12-14 million people to come and to stay. When the number of people that works for drops to very, very low levels then we can call it success. It's really not that hard of a concept, it's just that the dishonest always try to pose a more strict idea like "give us an actual number!" as if that was a reasonable request.
And I assume farv knows this and said it anyways, but "fiscal conservatism" isn't the only type there is. Conservatives support funding the legitimate functions of government, of which immigration control is one (even more so now after some of those Arizona court cases).
|
No, we need you to be specific about what that means. There is no quibbling when conservatives put it out there as the thing they want before they will negotiate immigration policy. Conservatives need to spell out specificly what "securing the boarder" entails. Otherwise is it just another version of "repeal Obamacare", a campaign rallying cry with no real legislative goals behind it.
|
On September 05 2017 05:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 20:58 farvacola wrote:On September 04 2017 13:23 Slaughter wrote:On September 04 2017 12:02 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2017 11:17 Tachion wrote:On September 04 2017 11:01 Nevuk wrote:President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises.
Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. He has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program and struggled with his own misgivings about targeting minors for deportation.
Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.
In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”
Trump is expected to announce his decision on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning, according to a source close to the administration. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301 It sounds like there is bipartisan support in congress for giving these people some sort of legal status. It would be a bit funny if congress ends up passing a bill that Trump has to sign after repealing the program. Or is that the intent to begin with? Hard for me to tell. This is what I've been trying to tell people. Amnesty of some form is inches from their fingertips, assuming they can stop for 3 seconds and agree to rigorous border security. But a certain party absolutely refuses, either because of stupidity or because they think that they need to import more voters later on. The entire Democrat party and at least half of the GOP want amnesty not just for "dreamers" but for every illegal immigrant. If you can actually provide evidence that "rigorous border security" isn't a huge waste of money, time, and man power then perhaps people would support it more. We've been down that path before; whenever anyone brings up stuff like the War on Drugs and right-to-work/labor pool problems or other policy areas where border security is implicated, all anyone like Introvert can talk about is how they can't believe a large portion of people are opposed to attempts at turning the US-Mexico border into Checkpoint Charlie. It's almost as though "fiscal conservatism" turns into something else when it needs to justify wasting billions on hopelessly stupid projects ostensibly designed to better control those wily foreigners trying to come here. Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 21:44 zlefin wrote:On September 04 2017 12:02 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2017 11:17 Tachion wrote:On September 04 2017 11:01 Nevuk wrote:President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises.
Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. He has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program and struggled with his own misgivings about targeting minors for deportation.
Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.
In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”
Trump is expected to announce his decision on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning, according to a source close to the administration. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301 It sounds like there is bipartisan support in congress for giving these people some sort of legal status. It would be a bit funny if congress ends up passing a bill that Trump has to sign after repealing the program. Or is that the intent to begin with? Hard for me to tell. This is what I've been trying to tell people. Amnesty of some form is inches from their fingertips, assuming they can stop for 3 seconds and agree to rigorous border security. But a certain party absolutely refuses, either because of stupidity or because they think that they need to import more voters later on. The entire Democrat party and at least half of the GOP want amnesty not just for "dreamers" but for every illegal immigrant. that sounds like partisan-hating nonsense to me. and the case for dreamers is pretty good regardless of the more general issues with immigration. at any rate: what would constitute "rigorous border security". I.e. how would we know when we have achieved it? cuz a politician will always be able to argue that the security is insufficient, and it's not possible to prevent all illegal entry. so having a defined standard is necessary for such a deal. can you specify such a standard? I understand it's easier when the left's position is "the only problem is how so many people want in but we won't let them." But the standard has always been rigorous border security. We can quibble about what that means, but I think it means a security and internal enforcement system that doesn't allow 12-14 million people to come and to stay. When the number of people that works for drops to very, very low levels then we can call it success. It's really not that hard of a concept, it's just that the dishonest always try to pose a more strict idea like "give us an actual number!" as if that was a reasonable request. And I assume farv knows this and said it anyways, but "fiscal conservatism" isn't the only type there is. Conservatives support funding the legitimate functions of government, of which immigration control is one (even more so now after some of those Arizona court cases).
What has been the net immigration from Mexico for the last decade?
If I'm not mistaken it's been a net negative? You want more secure than a negative immigration rate before we can move on to having a remotely functional immigration system?
|
On September 05 2017 05:20 Falling wrote:@zlefin You really don't like making this easy do you? I've indicated multiple times that I'm having a hard time seeing what your points are, but rather than clarify, you keep insisting that you made points and whatever I'm saying, I'm missing the point, whatever the point is. I've gone back ten pages, and I've filtered your name trying to find your points, but the discussion wasn't very long and you really didn't have many posts directly related to it. I jumped in with this: And you immediately replied that I had missed your points. The only of your posts prior to my post related to TPP that I could find is this: Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 06:10 zlefin wrote:On September 04 2017 05:54 Sermokala wrote:
Anyone who supported TPP in the form that DJT killed is an idiot. It would have removed the sovereignty of every nation involved and raise international corporations to the status of nation states able to change the laws of other nations in court and get all the money they think they should have made on top. It would have started an economic war in all of Asia between China and the union states for who can expoit the nations more and better. Some of these corporations would be directly controlled by said nation states and would have made things even worse. Any advances China get will be incredibly hampered until they figure out what exactly they want with the SCS and how to get the nations around them to acept it. Something the US is happy to delay as long as possible.
Yes straight scrapping the deal was bad but accepting it in any of its current form was much worse. If it was to any of a degree to be smart not to it would have involved a complete restart on the basics of what the trade deal would look like.
Its okay to admit a broken clock strikes correct twice. Or that Trumps only possible success's in office are as a result of his ignorance or incompetence. I'm not an idiot; I slightly supported the TPP as it was. Therefore I conclude that your claim is false. also, you're ignoring the evidence put forth in the past several pages on the topic; do you have a refutation for those points? i'm being generous in asking such; as your nonsense about sovereignty is grounds enough to conclude you're spouting stuff on which you have no understanding and minimal knowledge, and are only spouting talking points you've heard without ever looking at them deeply enough. but i'll give you a chance to demonstrate otherwise before finalizing a conclusion. and while this may seem a little rude; your accusation of idiocy was as well, especially since it's so unjustified. What points are you arguing here except to point to someone else's posts and to say that you are being generous in not assuming that Serm is spouting off? Sovereignty "The authority of a state to govern itself or another state; a self-governing state." What am I misusing? Kwark argued that these agreements are more self-imposed, not an external force. But I don't know if that's so obvious anymore when you consider how large international corporations have gotten in comparison to smaller countries. (Example- Tobacco companies vs the third world.)
you didn't ask for clarification so much as you asserted I didn't make points, when I did, and have repeatedly done so.
that was rude of you.
let's take my points from the quoted post:
"I'm not an idiot; I slightly supported the TPP as it was. Therefore I conclude that your claim is false."
that's point 1; the refutation of the claim only an idiot would support tpp.
"also, you're ignoring the evidence put forth in the past several pages on the topic; do you have a refutation for those points?"
point 2: some people provided credible and serious academic citations on these topics in the last few pages. a counterargument to those should be provided of similar credibility.
point 3: the claims of massive loss of sovereignty are overblown nonsense. and are typical political talking points that do not reflect reality.
your article does not counter any of those points.
It is interesting and relevant to the larger topic, but it does not counter any of my points.
I also, in a previous post, noted several major limitations on the conclusions that can be reached from the article; to which you did not respond.
Sovereignty - no sovereignty is lost since the government can choose to cancel the agreements, thus nullifying the tribunals and their rulings entirely. that a large company has generalized leverage, and can be a potent force relative to a small nation, is true; but that applies whether or not the tribunals exist. the tribunals themselves don't change the power relationship. as kwark said, it's self-imposed. the tribunals aren't imposed by force, they're purely optional, countries can simply choose not to agree to the treaty. They aren't being strong-armed into it (or if they are you need to provide evidence of such). the tribunals don't have a massive police force that will enforce their rulings; only hte nation's involved can enforce the rulings (and they might simply choose not to)
additionally, the existence of judicial bodies doens't really hurt the sovereignty of a people; any moreso than the US having a judicial branch limits the sovereignty of the people.
|
On September 05 2017 05:25 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 20:58 farvacola wrote:On September 04 2017 13:23 Slaughter wrote:On September 04 2017 12:02 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2017 11:17 Tachion wrote:On September 04 2017 11:01 Nevuk wrote:President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises.
Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. He has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program and struggled with his own misgivings about targeting minors for deportation.
Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.
In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”
Trump is expected to announce his decision on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning, according to a source close to the administration. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301 It sounds like there is bipartisan support in congress for giving these people some sort of legal status. It would be a bit funny if congress ends up passing a bill that Trump has to sign after repealing the program. Or is that the intent to begin with? Hard for me to tell. This is what I've been trying to tell people. Amnesty of some form is inches from their fingertips, assuming they can stop for 3 seconds and agree to rigorous border security. But a certain party absolutely refuses, either because of stupidity or because they think that they need to import more voters later on. The entire Democrat party and at least half of the GOP want amnesty not just for "dreamers" but for every illegal immigrant. If you can actually provide evidence that "rigorous border security" isn't a huge waste of money, time, and man power then perhaps people would support it more. We've been down that path before; whenever anyone brings up stuff like the War on Drugs and right-to-work/labor pool problems or other policy areas where border security is implicated, all anyone like Introvert can talk about is how they can't believe a large portion of people are opposed to attempts at turning the US-Mexico border into Checkpoint Charlie. It's almost as though "fiscal conservatism" turns into something else when it needs to justify wasting billions on hopelessly stupid projects ostensibly designed to better control those wily foreigners trying to come here. Show nested quote +On September 04 2017 21:44 zlefin wrote:On September 04 2017 12:02 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2017 11:17 Tachion wrote:On September 04 2017 11:01 Nevuk wrote:President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises.
Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. He has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program and struggled with his own misgivings about targeting minors for deportation.
Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.
In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”
Trump is expected to announce his decision on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning, according to a source close to the administration. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301 It sounds like there is bipartisan support in congress for giving these people some sort of legal status. It would be a bit funny if congress ends up passing a bill that Trump has to sign after repealing the program. Or is that the intent to begin with? Hard for me to tell. This is what I've been trying to tell people. Amnesty of some form is inches from their fingertips, assuming they can stop for 3 seconds and agree to rigorous border security. But a certain party absolutely refuses, either because of stupidity or because they think that they need to import more voters later on. The entire Democrat party and at least half of the GOP want amnesty not just for "dreamers" but for every illegal immigrant. that sounds like partisan-hating nonsense to me. and the case for dreamers is pretty good regardless of the more general issues with immigration. at any rate: what would constitute "rigorous border security". I.e. how would we know when we have achieved it? cuz a politician will always be able to argue that the security is insufficient, and it's not possible to prevent all illegal entry. so having a defined standard is necessary for such a deal. can you specify such a standard? I understand it's easier when the left's position is "the only problem is how so many people want in but we won't let them." But the standard has always been rigorous border security. We can quibble about what that means, but I think it means a security and internal enforcement system that doesn't allow 12-14 million people to come and to stay. When the number of people that works for drops to very, very low levels then we can call it success. It's really not that hard of a concept, it's just that the dishonest always try to pose a more strict idea like "give us an actual number!" as if that was a reasonable request. And I assume farv knows this and said it anyways, but "fiscal conservatism" isn't the only type there is. Conservatives support funding the legitimate functions of government, of which immigration control is one (even more so now after some of those Arizona court cases).
you're the one being glaringly dishonest, and acting ni bad faith, for shame.
it's far more than a quibble, when the evidence indicates that the right will say hte border security is inadequate no matter what level is achieved, it's very important to have an actual metric, rather than a vague demand which may never be satisfied. it's not a quibble, it's the heart of the matter. Your assertion that it's unreasonable to demand specifics is asinine. specifics is how you check whether a proposal is actually working! politicians excel at quibbling about vagaries; and some people like you lap that up.
You have no idea how hard it actually is to do the job; or what the costs of doing os would be. you merely assume it could be dramatically better at an easy cost. you assume this with no actual evidence to show for it.
What I would do, unlike your shameful display; is to make some damage estimate, which estimates the harm to americans caused by the presence of illegals, to a quantifiable dollar value, preferably on a metric like harm per illegal per year they are present (which is harder to figure out than some other metrics). then compare the cost of various proposals to cut down on the illegal presence to that metric, to see which ones represent a net profit for america, and which would cost more to enforce than they are worth (and i'm fine with including some extra "harm" damage to account for the rfact that they're breaking the law itself). and do continuing analyses to make sure programs are meeting those metrics.
It doesn't really matter how many illegals get caught at the border, or how many get deported, what matters is how many spend how much time here.
|
With regards to targets you have to actually be smart.
Specific
Measurable
Accepted
Realistic
Time bound
|
On September 05 2017 05:31 Plansix wrote:
No, we need you to be specific about what that means. There is no quibbling when conservatives put it out there as the thing they want before they will negotiate immigration policy. Conservatives need to spell out specificly what "securing the boarder" entails. Otherwise is it just another version of "repeal Obamacare", a campaign rallying cry with no real legislative goals behind it.
I've been specific enough for this discussion. Unless I'm going to start asking you how you would change the system. Listen, I know this thread had a hard time believe Republicans in Congress even want amnesty, but they do. There is this weird idea that talking about border security is some sort of dodge to just never do anything. That's only because the people writing the laws really aren't large fans of it in the first place. I'm actually very open to whatever they come up with so long as it works, and that the timeline for amnesty is after security is achieved. The only specifics I get from the left is "why do you hate people" and "it should be easier to come and stay."
On September 05 2017 05:32 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 05:25 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2017 20:58 farvacola wrote:On September 04 2017 13:23 Slaughter wrote:On September 04 2017 12:02 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2017 11:17 Tachion wrote:On September 04 2017 11:01 Nevuk wrote:President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises.
Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. He has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program and struggled with his own misgivings about targeting minors for deportation.
Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.
In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”
Trump is expected to announce his decision on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning, according to a source close to the administration. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301 It sounds like there is bipartisan support in congress for giving these people some sort of legal status. It would be a bit funny if congress ends up passing a bill that Trump has to sign after repealing the program. Or is that the intent to begin with? Hard for me to tell. This is what I've been trying to tell people. Amnesty of some form is inches from their fingertips, assuming they can stop for 3 seconds and agree to rigorous border security. But a certain party absolutely refuses, either because of stupidity or because they think that they need to import more voters later on. The entire Democrat party and at least half of the GOP want amnesty not just for "dreamers" but for every illegal immigrant. If you can actually provide evidence that "rigorous border security" isn't a huge waste of money, time, and man power then perhaps people would support it more. We've been down that path before; whenever anyone brings up stuff like the War on Drugs and right-to-work/labor pool problems or other policy areas where border security is implicated, all anyone like Introvert can talk about is how they can't believe a large portion of people are opposed to attempts at turning the US-Mexico border into Checkpoint Charlie. It's almost as though "fiscal conservatism" turns into something else when it needs to justify wasting billions on hopelessly stupid projects ostensibly designed to better control those wily foreigners trying to come here. On September 04 2017 21:44 zlefin wrote:On September 04 2017 12:02 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2017 11:17 Tachion wrote:On September 04 2017 11:01 Nevuk wrote:President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises.
Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. He has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program and struggled with his own misgivings about targeting minors for deportation.
Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.
In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”
Trump is expected to announce his decision on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning, according to a source close to the administration. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301 It sounds like there is bipartisan support in congress for giving these people some sort of legal status. It would be a bit funny if congress ends up passing a bill that Trump has to sign after repealing the program. Or is that the intent to begin with? Hard for me to tell. This is what I've been trying to tell people. Amnesty of some form is inches from their fingertips, assuming they can stop for 3 seconds and agree to rigorous border security. But a certain party absolutely refuses, either because of stupidity or because they think that they need to import more voters later on. The entire Democrat party and at least half of the GOP want amnesty not just for "dreamers" but for every illegal immigrant. that sounds like partisan-hating nonsense to me. and the case for dreamers is pretty good regardless of the more general issues with immigration. at any rate: what would constitute "rigorous border security". I.e. how would we know when we have achieved it? cuz a politician will always be able to argue that the security is insufficient, and it's not possible to prevent all illegal entry. so having a defined standard is necessary for such a deal. can you specify such a standard? I understand it's easier when the left's position is "the only problem is how so many people want in but we won't let them." But the standard has always been rigorous border security. We can quibble about what that means, but I think it means a security and internal enforcement system that doesn't allow 12-14 million people to come and to stay. When the number of people that works for drops to very, very low levels then we can call it success. It's really not that hard of a concept, it's just that the dishonest always try to pose a more strict idea like "give us an actual number!" as if that was a reasonable request. And I assume farv knows this and said it anyways, but "fiscal conservatism" isn't the only type there is. Conservatives support funding the legitimate functions of government, of which immigration control is one (even more so now after some of those Arizona court cases). What has been the net immigration from Mexico for the last decade? If I'm not mistaken it's been a net negative? You want more secure than a negative immigration rate before we can move on to having a remotely functional immigration system?
afaik it's been more or less even, maybe down some. Due to a few factors.
What a ridiculous way to frame that. I'd like for the government to know and control exactly who comes in, and can make them leave if they stay too long.
On September 05 2017 05:55 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 05:25 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2017 20:58 farvacola wrote:On September 04 2017 13:23 Slaughter wrote:On September 04 2017 12:02 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2017 11:17 Tachion wrote:On September 04 2017 11:01 Nevuk wrote:President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises.
Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. He has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program and struggled with his own misgivings about targeting minors for deportation.
Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.
In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”
Trump is expected to announce his decision on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning, according to a source close to the administration. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301 It sounds like there is bipartisan support in congress for giving these people some sort of legal status. It would be a bit funny if congress ends up passing a bill that Trump has to sign after repealing the program. Or is that the intent to begin with? Hard for me to tell. This is what I've been trying to tell people. Amnesty of some form is inches from their fingertips, assuming they can stop for 3 seconds and agree to rigorous border security. But a certain party absolutely refuses, either because of stupidity or because they think that they need to import more voters later on. The entire Democrat party and at least half of the GOP want amnesty not just for "dreamers" but for every illegal immigrant. If you can actually provide evidence that "rigorous border security" isn't a huge waste of money, time, and man power then perhaps people would support it more. We've been down that path before; whenever anyone brings up stuff like the War on Drugs and right-to-work/labor pool problems or other policy areas where border security is implicated, all anyone like Introvert can talk about is how they can't believe a large portion of people are opposed to attempts at turning the US-Mexico border into Checkpoint Charlie. It's almost as though "fiscal conservatism" turns into something else when it needs to justify wasting billions on hopelessly stupid projects ostensibly designed to better control those wily foreigners trying to come here. On September 04 2017 21:44 zlefin wrote:On September 04 2017 12:02 Introvert wrote:On September 04 2017 11:17 Tachion wrote:On September 04 2017 11:01 Nevuk wrote:President Donald Trump has decided to end the Obama-era program that grants work permits to undocumented immigrants who arrived in the country as children, according to two sources familiar with his thinking. Senior White House aides huddled Sunday afternoon to discuss the rollout of a decision likely to ignite a political firestorm — and fulfill one of the president’s core campaign promises.
Trump has wrestled for months with whether to do away with the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, known as DACA. He has faced strong warnings from members of his own party not to scrap the program and struggled with his own misgivings about targeting minors for deportation.
Conversations with Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who argued that Congress — rather than the executive branch — is responsible for writing immigration law, helped persuade the president to terminate the program, the two sources said, though White House aides caution that — as with everything in the Trump White House — nothing is set in stone until an official announcement has been made.
In a nod to reservations held by many lawmakers, the White House plans to delay the enforcement of the president’s decision for six months, giving Congress a window to act, according to one White House official. But a senior White House aide said that chief of staff John Kelly, who has been running the West Wing policy process on the issue, “thinks Congress should’ve gotten its act together a lot longer ago.”
Trump is expected to announce his decision on Tuesday, and the White House informed House Speaker Paul Ryan of the president’s decision on Sunday morning, according to a source close to the administration. Ryan had said during a radio interview on Friday that he didn’t think the president should terminate DACA, and that Congress should act on the issue. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/09/03/trump-dreamers-immigration-daca-immigrants-242301 It sounds like there is bipartisan support in congress for giving these people some sort of legal status. It would be a bit funny if congress ends up passing a bill that Trump has to sign after repealing the program. Or is that the intent to begin with? Hard for me to tell. This is what I've been trying to tell people. Amnesty of some form is inches from their fingertips, assuming they can stop for 3 seconds and agree to rigorous border security. But a certain party absolutely refuses, either because of stupidity or because they think that they need to import more voters later on. The entire Democrat party and at least half of the GOP want amnesty not just for "dreamers" but for every illegal immigrant. that sounds like partisan-hating nonsense to me. and the case for dreamers is pretty good regardless of the more general issues with immigration. at any rate: what would constitute "rigorous border security". I.e. how would we know when we have achieved it? cuz a politician will always be able to argue that the security is insufficient, and it's not possible to prevent all illegal entry. so having a defined standard is necessary for such a deal. can you specify such a standard? I understand it's easier when the left's position is "the only problem is how so many people want in but we won't let them." But the standard has always been rigorous border security. We can quibble about what that means, but I think it means a security and internal enforcement system that doesn't allow 12-14 million people to come and to stay. When the number of people that works for drops to very, very low levels then we can call it success. It's really not that hard of a concept, it's just that the dishonest always try to pose a more strict idea like "give us an actual number!" as if that was a reasonable request. And I assume farv knows this and said it anyways, but "fiscal conservatism" isn't the only type there is. Conservatives support funding the legitimate functions of government, of which immigration control is one (even more so now after some of those Arizona court cases). you're the one being glaringly dishonest, and acting ni bad faith, for shame. it's far more than a quibble, when the evidence indicates that the right will say hte border security is inadequate no matter what level is achieved, it's very important to have an actual metric, rather than a vague demand which may never be satisfied.
Really, what evidence is there of this? I told you what my requirement was. It was a pretty broad one with more than one way to make it work.
*****
I said it once already, but my standard is very low illegal crossings (as low as can be reasonably achieved) and internal enforcement strong enough that if you overstay you have a high likelihood of being kicked out. I'm actually very flexible on the means to these ends.
|
yep, you're still arguing in bda faith Intro. very low is a fudge word, not an actionable number. one can always argue that the standard "very low" wasn't met, no matter what the number is (barring the impossible 0). especially since there's a president who rejects the very notion of truth and is constantly spouts things that are provably false, yet alot of people believe them anyways and still vote for someone who lies so blatantly.
and, you continue to ignore my sound earlier point: you assume things could be dramatically better at a reasonable cost. you've yet to provide any evidence that it could be so; or that you have any understanding about how hard it can be to actually enforce rules, in a way that still satisfies the requirements of the constitution. you have no proof that what we're at now isn't as low as can reasonably be achieved. you only have an assertion.
|
The problem with illegal immigration is that its often framed from a perspective that you only have to target Mexicans.
If the goal is the uphold so-called rule of law, you're going to have to target a significant number of Europeans and people from Commonwealth nations overstaying their Visas and work permits. As far as I know, this sort of illegal immigration isn't so much a concern for ICE or guys like Donald Trump.
Its the same deal with Australia's immigration policy. They've got one that is often praised for being tough but they achieve their success by abusing the human rights of asylum seekers while not really upholding the rule of law because they don't bother checking the status of a significant number of British/New Zealand/Irish born residents.
|
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control.
|
On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control.
step 1: be realistic
|
On September 05 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control. step 1: be realistic
Even if the goal is an ideal, do you disagree with its principle?
|
On September 05 2017 06:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control. step 1: be realistic Even if the goal is an ideal, do you disagree with its principle?
Stopping all illegal immigration would be nice but its a complete and utter pipe dream so using it as a base for 'securing the border' stops any possibility of discussion on solutions.
|
On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control.
The goal of policing is zero crime. As that goal is unobtainable, we should spend some time figuring out what we as a nation find acceptable and how to achieve that,
|
On September 05 2017 06:56 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2017 06:54 Gorsameth wrote:On September 05 2017 06:52 xDaunt wrote:
The goal of any sane and humane immigration policy should be zero illegal immigration and absolute border control. step 1: be realistic Even if the goal is an ideal, do you disagree with its principle?
The policy created with goals of reducing illegal immigration by 50%, or 80%, or 99%, or 100% all look very different. A 50% reduction policy could look quite sane and humane whereas I can't even imagine the horrors involved in a 100% solution.
|
99% is Mexico paying to build the wall for you. 100% absolute border control is invading and occupying Canada.
What do you guys reckon the odds on Donald Trump declaring war on Canada?
|
On September 05 2017 07:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
99% is Mexico paying to build the wall for you. 100% absolute border control is invading and occupying Canada.
What do you guys reckon the odds on Donald Trump declaring war on Canada?
Does Canada have some trade with North Korea? Iirc they weren't on the list posted earlier. So I think he has to clean up that list first. So I guess we are first!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
