|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
|
|
On November 14 2018 15:26 Taelshin wrote:
To your point @Semantics maybe Obama should have revoked his credentials, could you link me some videos of Acosta acting the same way under Obama as he has under trump?
Another way to look at it might be, what would in your eyes be grounds for removal from the white house press core? keep in mind they are not removing the network , just a specific reporter.
In my mind grounds are laid out in law already. Revoking a press core security clearance can be done if there is a belief that physical harm may be caused by the reporter, which has to be written up, given notice and an opportunity to defend themselves of that allegation.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/409.1
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/409.2
+ Show Spoiler +
Obama's white house before Trump's was considered the most press unfriendly white house. They tried to get fox news removed if you care to remember. Their playbook was to deflect a question and give half answers, not be available for interview, not to attack organizations or persons, especially when questions are fielded at them. That's the real difference, Obama lead an noticeably press unfriendly white house, Trump outright attacks the press and straight up doesn't answer questions, he responds to questions but far from it gives any answer that could be actually written as an answer to said question, which is why the trump white house gets those repeated questions, give a deflected half answer and the press shuts up for the most part because they have a shitty answer but an answer none the less. Tell them that's a stupid question, they'll ask it again because they don't have an answer, all they have is a response.
|
FOX and DJT need to avoid discussing the caravan at this point. The more they talk about, the more it will come out that it went to Tijuana/CA, but Mattis/Trump sent the troops to the Texas border instead. How do you explain that to even the most drooling of T_D cultist? The caravan is in CA. The troops are in TX. Those are not the same places. Just the barest of facts is devastating.
|
Don't underestimate the genius of Mattis. He sent troops to Texas to avoid a conflict in CA. He was told to deploy troops to the border. Specifics were probably left to him.
|
The caravan is a non issue. How will anyone be able to climb the wall in the caravan? And they are not armed with any weapons. It won’t turn into a firefight but even in the best case scenario the caravan just runs into a border checkpoint and anyone in it without a visa/ legal authority to enter the USA just gets turned around and told to go home. No big deal.
|
On November 15 2018 13:08 Wulfey_LA wrote:FOX and DJT need to avoid discussing the caravan at this point. The more they talk about, the more it will come out that it went to Tijuana/CA, but Mattis/Trump sent the troops to the Texas border instead. How do you explain that to even the most drooling of T_D cultist? The caravan is in CA. The troops are in TX. Those are not the same places. Just the barest of facts is devastating. https://twitter.com/NickMiroff/status/1062764039154163720
Weren't the hundreds of people in Tijuana bussed there from the middle of Mexico?
I don't see that Fox needs to drop coverage because it's not like the image of people sitting on top of the border fence is going to increase sympathy for illegal immigration in their viewership.
|
On November 15 2018 15:00 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 13:08 Wulfey_LA wrote:FOX and DJT need to avoid discussing the caravan at this point. The more they talk about, the more it will come out that it went to Tijuana/CA, but Mattis/Trump sent the troops to the Texas border instead. How do you explain that to even the most drooling of T_D cultist? The caravan is in CA. The troops are in TX. Those are not the same places. Just the barest of facts is devastating. https://twitter.com/NickMiroff/status/1062764039154163720 Weren't the hundreds of people in Tijuana bussed there from the middle of Mexico? I don't see that Fox needs to drop coverage because it's not like the image of people sitting on top of the border fence is going to increase sympathy for illegal immigration in their viewership.
I will say it slower.
Trump/Mattis deployed the troops to Texas.
The caravan went to California.
There are 1500 miles of border/USA between the deployment and the caravan.
|
On November 15 2018 15:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 15:00 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2018 13:08 Wulfey_LA wrote:FOX and DJT need to avoid discussing the caravan at this point. The more they talk about, the more it will come out that it went to Tijuana/CA, but Mattis/Trump sent the troops to the Texas border instead. How do you explain that to even the most drooling of T_D cultist? The caravan is in CA. The troops are in TX. Those are not the same places. Just the barest of facts is devastating. https://twitter.com/NickMiroff/status/1062764039154163720 Weren't the hundreds of people in Tijuana bussed there from the middle of Mexico? I don't see that Fox needs to drop coverage because it's not like the image of people sitting on top of the border fence is going to increase sympathy for illegal immigration in their viewership. I will say it slower. Trump/Mattis deployed the troops to Texas. The caravan went to California. There are 1500 miles of border/USA between the deployment and the caravan.
From your tone it sounds like you think you're making a really insightful point but what you're saying leaves something to be desired. They sent troops somewhere, and the migrants (most of "the caravan" is still in Mexico) went somewhere else. That sounds on paper like working as intended. What's the issue?
Do soldiers have something more important to do? I'd imagine Texans are happy the caravan groups haven't tried to go there yet.
|
On November 14 2018 19:45 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2018 19:41 ReditusSum wrote:On November 14 2018 13:16 Plansix wrote:On November 14 2018 13:09 plasmidghost wrote:On November 14 2018 13:02 Womwomwom wrote:On November 14 2018 12:45 plasmidghost wrote:On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote:
They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions". I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed? Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet: Then into this tweet: I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent. I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal It is super fucking illegal to receive material support(money, or anything of value) from a foreign power to assist in winning an election. Sure is. Which is why it is interesting that no one on the left seemed to mind Hillary Clinton's campaign using British intelligence assets to hunt down dirt on Donald Trump. Intelligence assets that worked closely with Russian sources to gather said dirt and put it into a dossier that was then illegally leaked to the media. No, it is much easier just to memory hole all that with a media blackout and straw-manning it all as "because SOROS". Anyway let's look at the fruits of the Mueller "investigation": Because the Democrats hired a US company that has employees, not all of who are US citizens. Its almost like the two situations are very different, and one is illegal and the other is not. But hey, who cares about actual facts right.
Not sure I understand this standard.
It is okay to receive dirt on your political opponents from Russian agents as long as you launder that information first?
|
On November 15 2018 15:28 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 15:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 15 2018 15:00 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2018 13:08 Wulfey_LA wrote:FOX and DJT need to avoid discussing the caravan at this point. The more they talk about, the more it will come out that it went to Tijuana/CA, but Mattis/Trump sent the troops to the Texas border instead. How do you explain that to even the most drooling of T_D cultist? The caravan is in CA. The troops are in TX. Those are not the same places. Just the barest of facts is devastating. https://twitter.com/NickMiroff/status/1062764039154163720 Weren't the hundreds of people in Tijuana bussed there from the middle of Mexico? I don't see that Fox needs to drop coverage because it's not like the image of people sitting on top of the border fence is going to increase sympathy for illegal immigration in their viewership. I will say it slower. Trump/Mattis deployed the troops to Texas. The caravan went to California. There are 1500 miles of border/USA between the deployment and the caravan. From your tone it sounds like you think you're making a really insightful point but what you're saying leaves something to be desired. They sent troops somewhere, and the migrants (most of "the caravan" is still in Mexico) went somewhere else. That sounds on paper like working as intended. What's the issue?Do soldiers have something more important to do? I'd imagine Texans are happy the caravan groups haven't tried to go there yet.
Somewhere else is still the USA. Deploying troops costs tens of millions of dollars. You just spent tens of millions of dollars at the expense of a few hundred dollars worth in gas for those buses - and that's if they even heard about the troops and intentionally diverted. Mission successful?
And if they intend to stick around for the rest of that caravan to reach the border, then the bill is up to 9 figures. All so Texans can be NIMBYs I guess...?
And yes, the soldiers have more important things to do. Like anything else.
|
On November 15 2018 16:43 ReditusSum wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2018 19:45 Gorsameth wrote:On November 14 2018 19:41 ReditusSum wrote:On November 14 2018 13:16 Plansix wrote:On November 14 2018 13:09 plasmidghost wrote:On November 14 2018 13:02 Womwomwom wrote:On November 14 2018 12:45 plasmidghost wrote:On November 14 2018 12:30 Womwomwom wrote:
They've already indicted several people within Trump's inner circle so its already been more "productive" than all the Benghazi hearings put together. The only narrative that might get blown is that they can't figure if Trump made any direct effort to collude. That doesn't mean Donald Trump Jr can't get busted for talking to a foreign power about "adoptions". I'm 99% sure they won't, but I hope the Dems don't make a huge fuss should the investigation not show collusion by Trump's campaign (I should clarify that I mean some of the more progressive Dems that just got elected). I feel like some people will try to say the investigation wasn't legitimate and we've already had enough attacks on institutions like the FBI and the Justice Department by the Republicans that having those allegation thrown by the Dems will make things worse Just saw the above post, looks like I am missing that part about we knowing there being attempted colusion. What specifically has been revealed? Donald Trump Jr had a meeting with people connected with the Russian oligarchy to talk about the "adoption of Russian children" (in other words, the Magnitsky Act). Which turned into a meeting to see someone who "might have information helpful to the campaign." Which turned into this tweet: https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/886950594220568576Then into this tweet: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1026084333315153924I think its pretty clear cut that someone in the campaign at least attempted to collude with a foreign power and there was some quid pro quo business going on. It doesn't take a genius to put two and two together, they were simultaneously talking about the Magnitsky Act and talking about obtaining negative information about a political opponent. I cannot believe I forgot about this, I guess it just goes to show how many thoroughly crazy stories got reported that this still isn't a talking point, although I'm sure Mueller hasn't forgotten I'm actually curious on the laws regarding this. Is it legal to get dirt on a political rival from someone not affiliated with any government? I assume if they were affiliated with any foreign government, even if they were an ally, it would be illegal It is super fucking illegal to receive material support(money, or anything of value) from a foreign power to assist in winning an election. Sure is. Which is why it is interesting that no one on the left seemed to mind Hillary Clinton's campaign using British intelligence assets to hunt down dirt on Donald Trump. Intelligence assets that worked closely with Russian sources to gather said dirt and put it into a dossier that was then illegally leaked to the media. No, it is much easier just to memory hole all that with a media blackout and straw-manning it all as "because SOROS". Anyway let's look at the fruits of the Mueller "investigation": Because the Democrats hired a US company that has employees, not all of who are US citizens. Its almost like the two situations are very different, and one is illegal and the other is not. But hey, who cares about actual facts right. Not sure I understand this standard. It is okay to receive dirt on your political opponents from Russian agents as long as you launder that information first?
The difference is who you are beholden to. In a typical opposition research, you pay a company to do research. That company may hire foreign spies, but you are not beholden to the spies or any foreign government. You simply paid for a service and it's done.
When you go directly to Russian intelligence officers to get dirt on your opponent, you are in some way beholden to them. The Magnitsky Act was supposedly discussed. That was a law passed in 2012 365-43 in the House and 92-4 in the Senate and signed by president Obama. So obviously, both parties overall felt that it was a good idea. When Trump cronies meet with Russian cronies in private and receive dirt in exchange for getting rid of the Magnitsky Act, Trump's cronies are undermining the democratic institutions.
That's the difference. If Trump simply paid a firm some money and that firm had some contacts in Russia who relayed that Russia had hacked Hillary's emails and would leak them, then it wouldn't be nearly as bad.
|
This is also ignoring that Clinton and the DNC didn't even get any information from Russian agents. Or British agents, for that matter.
Steele built his report then took it to election officials, then the FBI, then the press. He might've had two degrees of separation to the DNC for his payroll, but then took his information through the proper channels.
|
On November 15 2018 15:28 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 15:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 15 2018 15:00 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2018 13:08 Wulfey_LA wrote:FOX and DJT need to avoid discussing the caravan at this point. The more they talk about, the more it will come out that it went to Tijuana/CA, but Mattis/Trump sent the troops to the Texas border instead. How do you explain that to even the most drooling of T_D cultist? The caravan is in CA. The troops are in TX. Those are not the same places. Just the barest of facts is devastating. https://twitter.com/NickMiroff/status/1062764039154163720 Weren't the hundreds of people in Tijuana bussed there from the middle of Mexico? I don't see that Fox needs to drop coverage because it's not like the image of people sitting on top of the border fence is going to increase sympathy for illegal immigration in their viewership. I will say it slower. Trump/Mattis deployed the troops to Texas. The caravan went to California. There are 1500 miles of border/USA between the deployment and the caravan. Do soldiers have something more important to do?
Are you serious?
|
On November 15 2018 15:28 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 15:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 15 2018 15:00 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2018 13:08 Wulfey_LA wrote:FOX and DJT need to avoid discussing the caravan at this point. The more they talk about, the more it will come out that it went to Tijuana/CA, but Mattis/Trump sent the troops to the Texas border instead. How do you explain that to even the most drooling of T_D cultist? The caravan is in CA. The troops are in TX. Those are not the same places. Just the barest of facts is devastating. https://twitter.com/NickMiroff/status/1062764039154163720 Weren't the hundreds of people in Tijuana bussed there from the middle of Mexico? I don't see that Fox needs to drop coverage because it's not like the image of people sitting on top of the border fence is going to increase sympathy for illegal immigration in their viewership. I will say it slower. Trump/Mattis deployed the troops to Texas. The caravan went to California. There are 1500 miles of border/USA between the deployment and the caravan. From your tone it sounds like you think you're making a really insightful point but what you're saying leaves something to be desired. They sent troops somewhere, and the migrants (most of "the caravan" is still in Mexico) went somewhere else. That sounds on paper like working as intended. What's the issue?Do soldiers have something more important to do? I'd imagine Texans are happy the caravan groups haven't tried to go there yet.
If there was a zerg rush and you moved all your marines to defend one of two entry points to your base, but all the zerglings arrived through the second entry point, would you say that defense went as intended and was a good use of your apm?
|
On November 15 2018 17:39 Neneu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 15:28 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2018 15:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 15 2018 15:00 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2018 13:08 Wulfey_LA wrote:FOX and DJT need to avoid discussing the caravan at this point. The more they talk about, the more it will come out that it went to Tijuana/CA, but Mattis/Trump sent the troops to the Texas border instead. How do you explain that to even the most drooling of T_D cultist? The caravan is in CA. The troops are in TX. Those are not the same places. Just the barest of facts is devastating. https://twitter.com/NickMiroff/status/1062764039154163720 Weren't the hundreds of people in Tijuana bussed there from the middle of Mexico? I don't see that Fox needs to drop coverage because it's not like the image of people sitting on top of the border fence is going to increase sympathy for illegal immigration in their viewership. I will say it slower. Trump/Mattis deployed the troops to Texas. The caravan went to California. There are 1500 miles of border/USA between the deployment and the caravan. From your tone it sounds like you think you're making a really insightful point but what you're saying leaves something to be desired. They sent troops somewhere, and the migrants (most of "the caravan" is still in Mexico) went somewhere else. That sounds on paper like working as intended. What's the issue?Do soldiers have something more important to do? I'd imagine Texans are happy the caravan groups haven't tried to go there yet. If there was a zerg rush and you moved all your marines to defend one of two entry points to your base, but all the zerglings arrived through the second entry point, would you say that defense went as intended and was a good use of your apm?
As a Terran user I'm actually forced to be adept at understanding zergling tight walls.
The US has tons of soldiers so it's not like some commitment was made that ended in disaster. It's more like just... whatever. Maybe it's purely a political move, maybe they can have a practical benefit in Texas, maybe the administration is partly testing the waters to see what kind of impact the soldiers could have and how they perform, as the administration might want alternatives for border enforcement as the wall hasn't gotten off the ground and is even less likely with a Democratic House.
The caravan migrants aren't going to be able to get through in Tijuana either, because they have border enforcement and are on alert now, and people had already been noting that legal asylum seekers seemed to be bottlenecked by officials at the ports of entry causing them to even maintain their own unofficial waiting list. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-asylum-seekers-notebook-holds-key-to-entry-20180705-story.html
|
On November 15 2018 18:02 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 17:39 Neneu wrote:On November 15 2018 15:28 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2018 15:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 15 2018 15:00 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2018 13:08 Wulfey_LA wrote:FOX and DJT need to avoid discussing the caravan at this point. The more they talk about, the more it will come out that it went to Tijuana/CA, but Mattis/Trump sent the troops to the Texas border instead. How do you explain that to even the most drooling of T_D cultist? The caravan is in CA. The troops are in TX. Those are not the same places. Just the barest of facts is devastating. https://twitter.com/NickMiroff/status/1062764039154163720 Weren't the hundreds of people in Tijuana bussed there from the middle of Mexico? I don't see that Fox needs to drop coverage because it's not like the image of people sitting on top of the border fence is going to increase sympathy for illegal immigration in their viewership. I will say it slower. Trump/Mattis deployed the troops to Texas. The caravan went to California. There are 1500 miles of border/USA between the deployment and the caravan. From your tone it sounds like you think you're making a really insightful point but what you're saying leaves something to be desired. They sent troops somewhere, and the migrants (most of "the caravan" is still in Mexico) went somewhere else. That sounds on paper like working as intended. What's the issue?Do soldiers have something more important to do? I'd imagine Texans are happy the caravan groups haven't tried to go there yet. If there was a zerg rush and you moved all your marines to defend one of two entry points to your base, but all the zerglings arrived through the second entry point, would you say that defense went as intended and was a good use of your apm? As a Terran user I'm actually forced to be adept at understanding zergling tight walls. The US has tons of soldiers so it's not like some commitment was made that ended in disaster. It's more like just... whatever. Maybe it's purely a political move, maybe they can have a practical benefit in Texas, maybe the administration is partly testing the waters to see what kind of impact the soldiers could have and how they perform, as the administration might want alternatives for border enforcement as the wall hasn't gotten off the ground and is even less likely with a Democratic House. The caravan migrants aren't going to be able to get through in Tijuana either, because they have border enforcement and are on alert now, and people had already been noting that legal asylum seekers seemed to be bottlenecked by officials at the ports of entry causing them to even maintain their own unofficial waiting list. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-asylum-seekers-notebook-holds-key-to-entry-20180705-story.html
How much taxpayer money is it okay for the government to completely waste in your mind? You do know it costs money to deploy the army, yes?
|
On November 15 2018 20:32 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2018 18:02 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2018 17:39 Neneu wrote:On November 15 2018 15:28 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2018 15:04 Wulfey_LA wrote:On November 15 2018 15:00 oBlade wrote:On November 15 2018 13:08 Wulfey_LA wrote:FOX and DJT need to avoid discussing the caravan at this point. The more they talk about, the more it will come out that it went to Tijuana/CA, but Mattis/Trump sent the troops to the Texas border instead. How do you explain that to even the most drooling of T_D cultist? The caravan is in CA. The troops are in TX. Those are not the same places. Just the barest of facts is devastating. https://twitter.com/NickMiroff/status/1062764039154163720 Weren't the hundreds of people in Tijuana bussed there from the middle of Mexico? I don't see that Fox needs to drop coverage because it's not like the image of people sitting on top of the border fence is going to increase sympathy for illegal immigration in their viewership. I will say it slower. Trump/Mattis deployed the troops to Texas. The caravan went to California. There are 1500 miles of border/USA between the deployment and the caravan. From your tone it sounds like you think you're making a really insightful point but what you're saying leaves something to be desired. They sent troops somewhere, and the migrants (most of "the caravan" is still in Mexico) went somewhere else. That sounds on paper like working as intended. What's the issue?Do soldiers have something more important to do? I'd imagine Texans are happy the caravan groups haven't tried to go there yet. If there was a zerg rush and you moved all your marines to defend one of two entry points to your base, but all the zerglings arrived through the second entry point, would you say that defense went as intended and was a good use of your apm? As a Terran user I'm actually forced to be adept at understanding zergling tight walls. The US has tons of soldiers so it's not like some commitment was made that ended in disaster. It's more like just... whatever. Maybe it's purely a political move, maybe they can have a practical benefit in Texas, maybe the administration is partly testing the waters to see what kind of impact the soldiers could have and how they perform, as the administration might want alternatives for border enforcement as the wall hasn't gotten off the ground and is even less likely with a Democratic House. The caravan migrants aren't going to be able to get through in Tijuana either, because they have border enforcement and are on alert now, and people had already been noting that legal asylum seekers seemed to be bottlenecked by officials at the ports of entry causing them to even maintain their own unofficial waiting list. http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-asylum-seekers-notebook-holds-key-to-entry-20180705-story.html How much taxpayer money is it okay for the government to completely waste in your mind? You do know it costs money to deploy the army, yes?
No it doesn't? They have the cars already, they eat even cheaper due to MREs, and electricity costs will be lower too since the barracks are empty. They get paid the same wether they're in barracks or at the border.
This is just a exercise in trying to save money in the army. It was a great idea by Trump, no flaw here. Yeah they're 1500 miles away from the action, but what you don't understand is that it's not important to have the army do the thing you said it would do.
Also, do you know the range of cruise missiles? 1500 miles is like they are in CA anyway.
I don't want to put down /s tags, i guess it's safer that way though.
|
I wonder if Democrats (in this thread at least) would ever compromise on this issue - let's have open borders (so no ICE/CBP/paper's please checkpoints/etc.), but no path to citizenship/vote for first generation immigrants (simply apply for permanent residence). Let's see if that compromise rhetoric is put into action. (Personally think free-trade and free movement of peoples with more restrictions on citizenship/vote privilege is ideal)
|
On November 15 2018 21:14 Wegandi wrote:
I wonder if Democrats (in this thread at least) would ever compromise on this issue - let's have open borders (so no ICE/CBP/paper's please checkpoints/etc.), but no path to citizenship/vote for first generation immigrants (simply apply for permanent residence). Let's see if that compromise rhetoric is put into action. (Personally think free-trade and free movement of peoples with more restrictions on citizenship/vote privilege is ideal)
Clearly you have never heard of the gang of 8. Immigration reform was possible several times in the last 20 years. But Republicans like Sessions moves heaven and earth to stop it.
Also, Democrats don’t want “open borders” whatever that really means.
|
Not that his compromise would be great either. It's obviously subjective, but even as a liberal voter, open borders are just moronic - not just in the EU, in the US it'd be even worse.
What does need to happen is that the entire system behind "the idea of how immigration is supposed to work" needs rebuilding. It's not radical (or purely republican for that matter) to want safe borders. What's missing is an actually working way to legally immigrate. The US system as it currently is is simply a joke (not that the EU does it better, it just does it wrong in the other direction). From application to decision it should take at maximum 3 months, and that's already lenient.
Put it this way, if you have no real possibility to apply legally, there's really no reason to complain if people do it illegally.
The US currently is just trying (screeching) to fix the results of a shitty system, rather than fixing the system itself. And the second you go into "well maybe this isn't the best way", republicans come running at you because you want all them murderous and rapey mexixans here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
