North Carolina Voting - and Consistency

[carpedm9587]

Um carpe... I didn't say anything about his claim about getting Mexico to pay it (although some economists have noted that the improvements he worked out in NAFTA could cover it) I was very specifically talking about how the left always claims he said the wall would run all the way from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific. You quickly changed the subject to the funding after giving a vague Trump said it but I'm not going to waste my time looking for evidence that he did.

Actually, I simply included his entire claim. But don't just go by my word. Why don't we let Donald tell us? Fro his tweet at 7:51 this morning:

An all concrete Wall was NEVER ABANDONED, as has been reported by the media. Some areas will be all concrete but the experts at Border Patrol prefer a Wall that is see through (thereby making it possible to see what is happening on both sides). Makes sense to me!

However, I'm sure there will be a creative way to spin even this statement so it doesn't say what it says.

[carpedm9587]

Which is precisely what Trump said he would do.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...irectly-nafta/

This idea that Trump expected Mexico to write a check and hand it over was a meme that liberals used to mock Trump, but it's not something he ever said.

I have been unable to find ANY support for the claim that the modest changes in NAFTA, which is all that was produced, will so drastically change the trade situation so as to produce the multi-billions required to build Trump's "all concrete" wall. Remember that the wall will be paid for out of our taxes. I would like to see any economic study that supports the claim that the tax intake will be so significantly changed by the USMCA that the taxes on the difference will pay for the wall. The linked article is simply a regurgitation of Trump's claims with no additional information.

[rogue06]

Actually, I simply included his entire claim. But don't just go by my word. Why don't we let Donald tell us? Fro his tweet at 7:51 this morning:

An all concrete Wall was NEVER ABANDONED, as has been reported by the media. Some areas will be all concrete but the experts at Border Patrol prefer a Wall that is see through (thereby making it possible to see what is happening on both sides). Makes sense to me!

However, I'm sure there will be a creative way to spin even this statement so it doesn't say what it says.

Once again you try to lead us down yet another rabbit hole. When are you going to address my point concerning nobody but liberals claiming that Trump said the wall would stretch from the Gulf to the Pacific rather than attempting to distract and deflect attention from it?

smiley waiting-impatient.gif

[carpedm9587]

Thank you for the information. No thanks for the accompanying snide remarks and mischaracterization, jackass.

I did run across a quote this morning from Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) expressing support for "enhanced fencing" but not a "wall" (which would certainly qualify as "enhanced fencing"); the Democrats are making the right noises, but stonewalling over semantics. It's difficult to resist despising politicians in general (both sides of the isle are abundantly guilty of this).

That's a start, OBP - but dig more. What the Democrats are objecting to (as am I) is the flagrant waste of money the "all concrete wall" Trump has been referring to would cost. The funds provided support construction of "enhanced fencing" - by which the Dems usually mean a metal barrier supported/supplemented by electronics for detection, and increased border patrolling. In other words, pretty much the exact thing the Israeli's built. And their wall was built to stop suicide bombers and snipers. We are under no such threat. The solution should conform to the level of the risk/threat involved.

To continually characterize that position as "not interested in border security" is simply false. That Trump repeats it even when shown it is not true means he is outright lying, probably because it rallies his base.

[carpedm9587]

When I see Mexican flags waved at pro-immigration demonstrations, I sometimes feel a flush of patriotic resentment. When I’m forced to use a translator to communicate with the guy fixing my car, I feel a certain frustration.

No that wasn't something Donald Trump said but rather a quote from Barack Obama back in 2005. Look at how much the Democrats have changed since then.

In 2008 the Democratic Party platform declared that, "We cannot continue to allow people to enter the United States undetected, undocumented, and unchecked," further noting that "those who enter our country’s borders illegally, and those who employ them, disrespect the rule of the law." Eight years later the Democrat Party platform was proclaiming that virtually everything wrong was the fault of America’s immigration system rather than illegal immigration itself.

In fact the platform wouldn't even mention the word illegal, or any variation of it at all. In fact, after Trump's calling the ultra-violent MS-13 "animals" we witnessed the Democrats refusing to distinguish between illegal immigration (including MS-13) and legal immigration as they conflated the two by claiming that Trump was calling all immigrants "animals" even though the most cursory of checks show he wasn't.

So how has this affected their views toward border security in general?

Although Democrats vehemently deny that they're for open borders, usually rejecting the claim as an outrageous slur, the evidence contradicts their protestations.

For a start let's examine how they reacted to the violent attempts back in late November by some of the illegal aliens in the caravan at the Ysidro port of entry. It was wall-to-wall condemnation of efforts to prevent this storming of the border by rock and bottle throwing thugs -- especially for the use of non-lethal crowd-control measures like tear gas and pepper spray in response to the attacks. For example, the incoming Democratic governor of California, Gavin Newsom, huffed in response:

That’s not my America. We’re a land of refuge. Of hope. Of freedom. And we will not stand for this.

Likewise, Democratic Rep. Scott Peters of San Diego went on NPR to denounce what he called "a shocking use of tear gas" against "a few of them [who] got impatient." Never mind that during the Obama Administration tear gas and pepper spray were used dozens if not hundreds of times along the border, but physically attacking border agents is now considered merely a few of them getting impatient.

We are left wondering if that now gets condemned like this then what border-control measures can they possibly be for?

In July 2018 a simple non-binding resolution supporting United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement was put before Congress. Only 18 Democrats voted for this resolution with nearly twice as many (35) voting no. Another 133 dodged the issue altogether by voting "present."

Instead of voicing even nominal support Democrats instead seemingly prefer to liken Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers Nazis.

For instance, last January, on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York actually stood on the steps of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) office in Manhattan and declared that:

We are standing in front of a building that has become the headquarters for the Gestapo of the United States of America.

Democrat Senator Dianne Feinstein of California also invoked the comparison when she told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes:

This is the United States of America. It isn’t Nazi Germany, and there’s a difference. And we don’t take children from their parents until now and I think it’s such a sad day.

Michael Hayden, who served as Obama's first director of the CIA compared the temporary separation of adults and children on the U.S. southern border by ICE with the systematic genocide of the Holocaust thereby refashioning ICE agents as Nazis and turning illegal aliens into the bizarre equivalent of a Holocaust victims.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34137[/ATTACH]

Others merely want to get rid of ICE without resorting to slurs. The "abolish ICE" movement has really taken off among Democrats.

Open-borders socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (the swooned over darling of the left who Tom Perez, the head of the Democratic National Committee, called the future of his party) ran on a simple far-left platform that included abolishing ICE to be "replace[d] with a humane agency that is directed towards safe passage." Her vision of a secure border is where border patrol become travel agents instead of law enforcement. They will no longer deter anyone from entering illegally. Instead they will offer "safe passage." You can't get more open border than that.

Ocasio-Cortez has also called for protesters to occupy ICE offices around the country.

Many of those listed as being aspirants for the Democrat's 2020 presidential nomination have signed on. Senators Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Kamala Harris (D-Calif) along with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio have all called for the agency to be outright abolished or at least to "start from scratch." Interestingly, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), another likely candidate, came under intense criticism from liberal activists for refusing to go that far.

But, it should be noted, some others went the other way. For instance Occupy Wall Street, which received praise from the Obama Administration (which even instructed law enforcement to back off wrt enforcing any laws they broke) as well as Democrats in Congress (several of whom went to their riot/protests and spoke before them and encouraged them), called for the murder of ICE agents altering a CPR infographic so that it provides graphic instructions on how to accomplish it.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34138[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34139[/ATTACH]

As for open borders, many prominent Democrats have expressed support for the idea when they declare that illegal aliens shouldn't be deported.

Hillary Clinton talked about her dream of open borders in a paid for 2013 speech but tried to backtrack later on laughably claiming she was actually referring to free trade. But in 2016 she made what she meant clear during one of the 2016 primary debates when she said:

Of the people, the undocumented people living in our country, I do not want to see them deported.

Likewise, at the same debate, in response to Jorge Ramos’ question, "And can you promise not to deport immigrants who don’t have a criminal record?" Bernie Sanders emphatically responded, "I can make that promise."

Incoming Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi put it very clearly in 2013:

If somebody is here without sufficient documentation, that is not reason for deportation.

And as previously noted

Further, a Harvard-Harris poll from this past summer revealed that 36% of Democrats support "basically open borders."

All of this has been cause for concern for other Democrats. Democratic Rep. Tom Suozzi of New York lambasted the extremist immigration rhetoric coming from his party stating, "Open borders is not a winning policy." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has criticized all of the calls to scrap ICE. Such things would hardly be necessary if they weren't serious concerns.

So as we can see, a large percentage of Democrats want to neuter the one agency responsible for enforcing border security. They want to make it easy for illegals who cross to stay in the country. They want those already in the country illegally to not be deported. And that isn't all.

Democrats have been moving to give non-citizens including illegal aliens the right to vote. For example, in San Francisco they started registering illegals in July 2018 so that they can vote in local elections like those for school boards.^[1] Several towns and cities in Maryland also allow non-citizens to vote as well, allowing them to vote in municipal elections in 2017.

IIRC, Portland, Oregon has made similar moves although I don't know if they've been enacted.

Keep that in mind when Minority Leader Senator Chuck Schumer of New York declared at a press conference last month that Democrats are fighting for "real reforms," such as allowing "everybody" to vote. "Everybody," he reiterated. Schumer then twice called it "despicable" to excluding anyone from voting.

And finally we get to "sanctuary cities" and "sanctuary states" -- the very embodiment of the left's open border policies (regardless of what the law says) where illegal aliens are protected from being deported even when they break the law. In some, like Oakland, the mayor will even tip them off to raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

As of April 2018 there are 564 jurisdictions in the U.S. (including entire states like New York and California) that have adopted sanctuary policies. That is up from more than 200 when Trump took office and 40 when Obama took office. The Washington Times calculated that 49% of the country’s population live in sanctuary cities or states.

The Democratic Party's policy of sanctuary cities and sanctuary states actively encourage people to try to enter the country illegally. There's a reason that the infamous migrant caravan^[2] chose to travel to California’s southern border rather than a closer state like Texas. They know that if they managed to make it in, the state's policies will protect them.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34140[/ATTACH] [ATTACH=CONFIG]34141[/ATTACH]
The second one demonstrates there were a lot of other routes but only one led to a sanctuary state

Why else would they travel an additional 1500 miles, including through much more territories controlled by the notorious and ultra-violent Mexican drug cartels? Wasn't escaping violence one of the primary reasons they claimed that they were leaving their countries?

It should come as no surprise that during the mid-term elections John Podesta’s liberal Center for American Progress and the supposedly centrist Third Way think tanks were coaching Democrat candidates for Congress to conceal support for sanctuary cities and spend "as little time as possible" talking about immigration in general.

Strange advice and totally unnecessary for a group which purports to support strong border security.

So while only a few well know Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Keith Ellison openly declare their support for open borders, the actions of many others belie their protestations that they support border security. Simply put their hostility toward border control officials, their declarations that illegal aliens shouldn't be deported when apprehended, their establishing "sanctuaries" where they actively prevent illegals from being deported even when caught breaking the law, their wanting to grant every illegal in the country amnesty speaks loud and clear to the contrary.

But still we're supposed to believe that Democrats aren't for open borders simply because they say so. Riiiiiight.











1. would be very disappointed if I didn't include at least one footnote so I'll note that several "fact checkers" dishonestly declared that the fact that non-citizens as well as illegal aliens were being allowed to vote was false. They were saying that because they weren't (yet) being allowed to vote in all elections they therefore weren't being allowed to vote.

2. Since the prodder of bovines wouldn't be happy with just one, I'll note that campaign staffers of Texas Democratic Senate hopeful and yet another presidential aspirant Beto O'Rourke were caught on camera by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas team admitting to using campaign funds to support the migrant caravan as it made its way to the United States. This, anyone with a cursory understanding of election law can understand, is highly illegal.

Rogue - you obviously did a lot of digging to round this up - but it doesn't convey what I think you wanted it to convey. Yes- there are examples of people who want open borders. I am a bit surprised by the 36% number - but it seems to hold up - and is not a majority. That is pretty much the only true research data in your entire post. The rest is just another list of examples.

Response to the caravan: Since the majority of the caravan was found to be families, including many children, seeking to apply for asylum in the U.S., many on the left reacted to Trump's hateful rhetoric and mis-characterization of their make-up. How do we know this? Because we had multiple media outlets with reporters embedded in the caravan. We ARE a nation with a history of opening our doors to those in need. The recent shift in that is of some dismay to many of us. That does not translate to "open borders." But it DOES translate to controlled borders with an open mind to those seeking help.

Response to ICE: While ICE is a necessary function - the current ICE agency simply has too many documented cases of abuse. The institution needs house-cleaning to sort out the abusers from the good men and women trying to do their jobs well. And it needs leadership that is not pounding the "immigrants bad" drum every day. A fish rots from the head, as they say. This still does not mean open borders. The call is not for "abolish ICE and replace it with nothing," it is usually for "abolish ICE and put something better in place." And when you have an agency intentionally separating families, and putting unaccompanied children who are less than 3 years old in front of immigration judges - something is badly wrong. Little wonder that so many of our elected officials would not get behind a resolution to praise them. I have to wonder how many on the right would sign a resolution praising the work of the good people at the IRS?

Existing undocumented immigrants: Many of us believe that these people have set roots here because of a combination of factors, including our poor immigration laws and border defense. Arguing to give these people a path to citizen ship does not translate to "just open the borders." Most argue that we should do what Reagan attempted to do in the 1980s, only do it right this time. I happen to be one of those. I advocate to give the existing people in the U.S. and arduous path to citizenship (more than the normal path to allow for their illegal entry), and then tighten border security and adopt a "from this point on no more" stance.

Sanctuary cities: This is merely an extension of the previous paragraph. Those of us who believe that undocumented aliens already here should have a path to citizenship also believe that, until we can get the government to do the right thing, some protections need to be provided to these people. That also does not translate to "open borders." It's about the 11M undocumwented immigrants already here.

In short (I know, too late), you are twisting a lot of positions to make them fit your "Dems want open borders" narrative. But even your own statistic says you're wrong. If 36% want open borders, it rationally follows that 67% do NOT want open borders. So the statement "Dems want open borders" is false - too sweeping - and if chronically repeated even when shown to be false - becomes a lie.

I'm reasonably sure that response will earn another waving hand emoji...

[carpedm9587]

Once again you try to lead us down yet another rabbit hole. When are you going to address my point concerning nobody but liberals claiming that Trump said the wall would stretch from the Gulf to the Pacific rather than attempting to distract and deflect attention from it?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]34163[/ATTACH]

So I found one article in which Trump acknowledges that his wall does not need to stretch the entire distance because "there are natural barriers," like mountains (apparently he never saw the "Sound of Music" ) and raging rivers (apparentlly he doesn't know that river flow levels are seasonal). He wants wall along 1350 - 1550 miles of the border - not all 2,000. Given that we already have 650 miles of fencing, his additional 700-900 miles would cover that. Making it "all concrete" is what makes it expensive. And, amazingly enough, his "wall samples" so often pictured show towering, 40' slabs of concrete in various forms. There is no "wall sample" I have been able to find of a "fence" - and he only recently added his "metal slat" proposal. (I have no idea how this squares with his "we never abandoned all-concrete" claim - then man is a very bad communicator and regularly turns on a dime.)

The general point being made stands: an all-concrete solution for this kind of distance is too expensive and unnecessary. There are lower-cost alternatives that are equally effective for the problem to be solved.

And I find it interesting that no one has ever addressed the issue of sovereign lands. I've noted it here several times, but it simply continually gets ignored. I find that interesting.

[Cow Poke]

So I found one article in which Trump acknowledges that his wall does not need to stretch the entire distance because "their are natural barriers," ...

He said "their are..."????

[carpedm9587]

He said "their are..."????

I don't know what you're talking about. My post is grammatically correct.

[Terraceth]

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I have to admit my feelings have frequently been "with how much excess spending the government already does each year, what's a little extra excess spending for Trump's pet project?"

[JimL]

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I have to admit my feelings have frequently been "with how much excess spending the government already does each year, what's a little extra excess spending for Trump's pet project?"

He told everyone over and over again that the American taxpayer wouldn't have to pay for it, that Mexico would pay for it. So why should those of us (democrats) that don't even want a wall, give in and pay for it, for what, to make Trump happy? Why do we not instead not spend the money and make democrats happy, since Trump blatantly lied to everyone anyway. Besides that he's already increased the deficit by some trillion dollars. Republicans used to pretend that they actually cared about such things, but the cats out of the bag as they say, turns out they only care about deficits when Democrats are in charge.

[carpedm9587]

Maybe I'm just a cynic, but I have to admit my feelings have frequently been "with how much excess spending the government already does each year, what's a little extra excess spending for Trump's pet project?"

Yeah - I would say you are a bit of a cynic.

But the problem with the wall is not just wasted money - it's also over-dependence on an approach that simply won't solve the problems, for all of the reasons that have already been cited.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah - I would say you are a bit of a cynic.

But the problem with the wall is not just wasted money - it's also over-dependence on an approach that simply won't solve the problems, for all of the reasons that have already been cited.

Personally, I think we'd do a whole lot better to actually come up with a reasonable, consistent, and consistently implemented immigration policy.

[JimL]

Personally, I think we'd do a whole lot better to actually come up with a reasonable, consistent, and consistently implemented immigration policy.

Agreed, and really it shouldn't be all that difficult to come up with such policy. But a wall is not going to stop people who would walk thousands of miles to escape the dire conditions they face at home.

[rogue06]

Personally, I think we'd do a whole lot better to actually come up with a reasonable, consistent, and consistently implemented immigration policy.

The problem is that far too many don't want to enforce it. Half the U.S. population now lives in "sanctuary" jurisdictions where even when an illegal alien commits a crime they won't be subject to immigration laws. And then you have a certain percentage of Republicans who don't want any change because a number of large companies that profit on having a cheap labor force make sizable contributions to them to ensure that the status quo doesn't change. Meanwhile the American public continues to get shafted as a result.

[rogue06]

Agreed, and really it shouldn't be all that difficult to come up with such policy. But a wall is not going to stop people who would walk thousands of miles to escape the dire conditions they face at home.

And yet when you ask border patrol and customs agents and the like they almost universally support building a wall. Go figure.