Shutdown Over Border Security?

[Bill the Cat]

Well you certainly don't have a clue about what constitutes an emergency in the US. 69% of Americans Don’t Think Trump's Border Wall Is a Priority, Poll Says:

http://fortune.com/2018/12/12/trump-border-wall-poll/

It's only the relatively small Trump base that think it's important. The only "emergency" is Trump's fear of alienating his base.

Support is actually growing since Gallup started asking the question in the 90s.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/246455/solid-majority-opposes-new-construction-border-wall.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=NEWSFEED&g_campaign=item_&g_content=Solid%2520Majority%2520Still%2520Opposes%2520New%2520Construction%2520on%2520Border%2520Wall

... in 1993, when 71% said they opposed "erecting a wall along the border with Mexico." Opposition eased slightly in 1995, when 62% were against erecting a wall. In 2006, opposition to "building a wall along the border with Mexico" was 56%.


Seventy-eight percent in November identified immigration as an extremely or very important issue to them in the midterm elections, ranking it among the top three issues in importance to the public.

© Copyright Original Source

The only reason opposition from Democraps is so strong is because you tools are lemmings. You're told to be against it because a Republican is for it.

Source: above

the percentage saying they feel strongly one way or another about expanding the walls has increased since last June's poll -- from 58% to 65%. More of that increase has come in strong opposition (five points) than in strong support (two points).

© Copyright Original Source

[carpedm9587]

Support is actually growing since Gallup started asking the question in the 90s.

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/246455/solid-majority-opposes-new-construction-border-wall.aspx?g_source=link_NEWSV9&g_medium=NEWSFEED&g_campaign=item_&g_content=Solid%2520Majority%2520Still%2520Opposes%2520New%2520Construction%2520on%2520Border%2520Wall

... in 1993, when 71% said they opposed "erecting a wall along the border with Mexico." Opposition eased slightly in 1995, when 62% were against erecting a wall. In 2006, opposition to "building a wall along the border with Mexico" was 56%.


Seventy-eight percent in November identified immigration as an extremely or very important issue to them in the midterm elections, ranking it among the top three issues in importance to the public.

© Copyright Original Source

The only reason opposition from Democraps is so strong is because you tools are lemmings. You're told to be against it because a Republican is for it.

Source: above

the percentage saying they feel strongly one way or another about expanding the walls has increased since last June's poll -- from 58% to 65%. More of that increase has come in strong opposition (five points) than in strong support (two points).

© Copyright Original Source

What jumped out from the Gallup survey to me was the 81% who want a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally. What other issue has 81% support from the electorate - but the legislative and executive branches refuse to act? Those numbers suggest that a sizable chunk of Trump's own base want it! It leaves me wondering, "why is there no action?"

[Bill the Cat]

What jumped out from the Gallup survey to me was the 81% who want a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally. What other issue has 81% support from the electorate - but the legislative and executive branches refuse to act? Those numbers suggest that a sizable chunk of Trump's own base want it! It leaves me wondering, "why is there no action?"

Because it typically doesn't affect them, so they don't care. They see no immediate impact to their wallet, and don't want to be seen as "meanies to those poor kids".

[carpedm9587]

Because it typically doesn't affect them, so they don't care. They see no immediate impact to their wallet, and don't want to be seen as "meanies to those poor kids".

The questions did not single out "DACA," BTC - as far as I can tell. It was an open question about immigrants here illegally. So it's not just about "the poor kids," AFAICT. Support specifically for DACA, I would imagine (but have no relevant data, so I don't know for sure), would be even higher.

Personally, that is the camp I am in: firm up border security and establish a "no more from this point forward" and then give those already here a demanding path to citizenship (more than what someone entering legally would be required to do).

[Bill the Cat]

The questions did not single out "DACA," BTC - as far as I can tell. It was an open question about immigrants here illegally. So it's not just about "the poor kids," AFAICT. Support specifically for DACA, I would imagine (but have no relevant data, so I don't know for sure), would be even higher.

Personally, that is the camp I am in: firm up border security and establish a "no more from this point forward" and then give those already here a demanding path to citizenship (more than what someone entering legally would be required to do).

You create a magnet for illegal entry. The number of unauthorized immigrants in the country rose from roughly 5 million in 1986 to ~ 11 million today. The leveling off of illegal migration is attributed to both the recent recession and better border enforcement.

[Littlejoe]

The questions did not single out "DACA," BTC - as far as I can tell. It was an open question about immigrants here illegally. So it's not just about "the poor kids," AFAICT. Support specifically for DACA, I would imagine (but have no relevant data, so I don't know for sure), would be even higher.

Personally, that is the camp I am in: firm up border security and establish a "no more from this point forward" and then give those already here a demanding path to citizenship (more than what someone entering legally would be required to do).

I could live with that as long as Border security is indeed, truly firmed up. How many would really stay with the program on a "demanding path" and what do you do with the ones who don't?

[carpedm9587]

You create a magnet for illegal entry. The number of unauthorized immigrants in the country rose from roughly 5 million in 1986 to ~ 11 million today. The leveling off of illegal migration is attributed to both the recent recession and better border enforcement.

I don't agree. The existence of illegal immigrants in our country is due to a combination of two factors: they came - and we let them. If either had not happened, we wouldn't have the problem. Ergo - the right approach (IMO) is to take mutual responsibility. So 1) firm up the border and put a "stake in the sand" against future illegal immigration. and 2) give the existing illegal immigrants an arduous path to citizenship.

The arduous path will encourage people to go the legal way - because it's easier. The firmed up border and zero tolerance (going forward) will eventually make it clear "we mean it." There may be a short-term surge, but it will end.

And ALL of this has to be done in conjunction with solving the root problem. Blocking the border deals with the symptom - not the cause.

[carpedm9587]

I could live with that as long as Border security is indeed, truly firmed up. How many would really stay with the program on a "demanding path" and what do you do with the ones who don't?

They get a choice: the path or deportation. There has to be SOME consequence for illegal entry.

[Bill the Cat]

I don't agree. The existence of illegal immigrants in our country is due to a combination of two factors: they came - and we let them. If either had not happened, we wouldn't have the problem. Ergo - the right approach (IMO) is to take mutual responsibility. So 1) firm up the border and put a "stake in the sand" against future illegal immigration. and 2) give the existing illegal immigrants an arduous path to citizenship.

Why not 1) firm up the border and 2) Give the existing illegal immigrants the boot? It's simply not fair to those who 1) did it the legal way, and 2) those who are waiting through the legal way.

The arduous path will encourage people to go the legal way - because it's easier.

Nah. They will just do like they did after Reagan's amnesty - just not report. That's the easiest way.

The firmed up border and zero tolerance (going forward) will eventually make it clear "we mean it." There may be a short-term surge, but it will end.

But we DON'T mean it, and we haven't since the late 60s when the zero tolerance measures were overturned because of the availability of cheap labor and poor border security.

And ALL of this has to be done in conjunction with solving the root problem. Blocking the border deals with the symptom - not the cause.

The cause is simple. They want in because we are prosperous wimps and we refuse to kick them out or punish those who hire them.

[carpedm9587]

Why not 1) firm up the border and 2) Give the existing illegal immigrants the boot?

Because:

1) it absolves us of our responsibility for the situation without owning our end,
2) it will disrupt deeply embedded families (the average illegal immigrant has been here nearly 15 years)
3) it will be highly disruptive to our economy (many of these immigrants have businesses, and they represent a significant percentage of the employee base for several industries)
4) it is simply not necessary or humane.

It's simply not fair to those who 1) did it the legal way, and 2) those who are waiting through the legal way.

Not if the path is sufficiently arduous. Those entering legally will have a smoother easier path, which is their "perk" for doing it the right way. BTW, "it's not fair" is not an argument that has much weight with me. Ask my kids.

Nah. They will just do like they did after Reagan's amnesty - just not report. That's the easiest way.

Then the left will have no argument left when they are found and deported.

But we DON'T mean it, and we haven't since the late 60s when the zero tolerance measures were overturned because of the availability of cheap labor and poor border security.

"We've never done it before" is not an argument that has a lot of weight with me. We can do whatever we want to - we just have to have the collective will.

The cause is simple. They want in because we are prosperous wimps and we refuse to kick them out or punish those who hire them.

Sort of. The cause is simple: we are more prosperous and safer here than they are in their own countries. That is the disparity that has to be addressed. If it is not, there will always be an influx of illegal immigrants. With 10,000+ miles of border and hundreds of legal ports of entry - there will always be a way to get in. Pouring money into defending against an endless flow is an exercise in folly. Change the flow.

[Bill the Cat]

Because:

1) it absolves us of our responsibility for the situation without owning our end,

We have to go through the trouble of deporting millions of people. Believe me, that's not absolving anything.

2) it will disrupt deeply embedded families (the average illegal immigrant has been here nearly 15 years)

Boo hoo...

3) it will be highly disruptive to our economy (many of these immigrants have businesses, and they represent a significant percentage of the employee base for several industries)

How did they get a business license?

4) it is simply not necessary or humane.

It's no less humane than them living in the shadows running from the authorities. And it may not be "necessary" but it is prudent.

Not if the path is sufficiently arduous. Those entering legally will have a smoother easier path, which is their "perk" for doing it the right way. BTW, "it's not fair" is not an argument that has much weight with me. Ask my kids.

So, you don't care about justice and equality now?

Then the left will have no argument left when they are found and deported.

They'll find SOMETHING to bitch about...

"We've never done it before" is not an argument that has a lot of weight with me. We can do whatever we want to - we just have to have the collective will.

Established patterns are a very solid base for an argument.

Sort of. The cause is simple: we are more prosperous and safer here than they are in their own countries. That is the disparity that has to be addressed. If it is not, there will always be an influx of illegal immigrants. With 10,000+ miles of border and hundreds of legal ports of entry - there will always be a way to get in. Pouring money into defending against an endless flow is an exercise in folly. Change the flow.

So, create MORE dependents for the government? National welfare?

[carpedm9587]

We have to go through the trouble of deporting millions of people. Believe me, that's not absolving anything.

Not exactly what I meant.

Boo hoo...

I am aware this is not a factor for you, BTC. I have not had an impression that empathy is part of your makeup.

How did they get a business license?

What "business license?" I run a business and never had to "get a business license." What are you referring to?

It's no less humane than them living in the shadows running from the authorities. And it may not be "necessary" but it is prudent.

My plan would take them out of the shadows. And I disagree that it is "prudent."

So, you don't care about justice and equality now?

I think the statement "it's not fair" is the whine of a toddler. I don't give it a lot of attention.

They'll find SOMETHING to bitch about...

Both sides seem to have that skill.

Established patterns are a very solid base for an argument.

And they are not an argument for how things need to be - just how things have been. This is a common song of the conservative - because they have a tendency to look backwards and pine for "how its always been." On this issue I lean more liberal - so I am more inclined to look ahead and see how it could be, with the right leadership.

So, create MORE dependents for the government? National welfare?

That was never part of my argument - so I have no response.

[Bill the Cat]

Not exactly what I meant.

That's been one of the biggest complaints for why we don't deport more people. The cost.

I am aware this is not a factor for you, BTC. I have not had an impression that empathy Is part of your makeup.

Wanting the law followed is a lack of empathy??

What "business license?" I run a business and never had to "get a business license." What are you referring to?

If you operate a business in the US with the goal of earning revenue, you must have a business license.

https://ct.wolterskluwer.com/resourc...nline-business

This requires identification to obtain. If you didn't have a license, you were breaking the law.

My plan would take them out of the shadows. And I disagree that it is "prudent."

No it wouldn't. It would keep them there because the process would be harder than simply evading capture.

I think the statement "it's not fair" is the whine of a toddler. I don't give it a lot of attention.

Then I'll use some liberal terms. It's unjust and discriminatory to provide one group favor over another.

Both sides seem to have that skill.

True.

And they are not an argument for how things need to be - just how things have been. This is a common song of the conservative - because they have a tendency to look backwards and pine for "how its always been." On this issue I lean more liberal - so I am more inclined to look ahead and see how it could be, with the right leadership.

They are predictors of behavior. Every analysis of future performance or behavior uses them.

That was never part of my argument - so I have no response.

Didn't you suggest propping up those foreign economies to make them more competitive in relation to ours?

[Sparko]

My “expertise” comes from legitimate sources such as:

https://www.cato.org/publications/im...egal-immigrant

“Criminal Immigrants in Texas: Illegal Immigrant Conviction and Arrest Rates for Homicide, Sex Crimes, Larceny, and Other Crimes”.

I suggest you browse through the Report.



The vast majority of drugs get into the US via legal ports of entry. THE WALL won’t stop them.

https://www.politifact.com/new-york/...ts-entry-lowe/



Well most do NOT cross over. Most illegal immigration isn’t coming from The Mexican Border, but from legal ports of entry. It occurs when people enter legally via ports of entry and overstay their temporary visas. THE WALL won’t affect this.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/08/desp...rn-border.html

Yep a media tourist. You really don't have a clue Tassman. You watch TV and read blogs and think you understand our country and our problems. You trying to tell us how to handle our business is as bad as a white person going into a black neighborhood and telling them how they should fix things. Not only are you ignorant, but you are insulting.

[carpedm9587]

That's been one of the biggest complaints for why we don't deport more people. The cost.

I have no idea how you think the high cost of deportation in any way means we're owning our part of the situation. We're still ignoring that the presence of these people here is partylu our fault, but making them pay by uprooting them and shipping them to another country.

Wanting the law followed is a lack of empathy??

It can be. My impression is that your hatred for illegal immigrants trumps (pun intended) any empathy for the situation in which they find themselves. It doesn't matter why they came - it doesn't matter what role they currently play - it doesn't matter what life they've lived since arriving - or how they contribute to their communities - your answer is the same for all situations: ship them out! So yes - you appear to lack any degree of empathy or charity. You have one response for illegal immigration that is to be applied to all situations: get them out.

If you operate a business in the US with the goal of earning revenue, you must have a business license.

https://ct.wolterskluwer.com/resourc...nline-business

This requires identification to obtain. If you didn't have a license, you were breaking the law.

So you just jump over some significant words like "often" and "in some states" and so forth. I have a business. I have no business license. There is no requirement for one for what I do. That is the case for many kinds of business - and varies widely state-to-state. I'm not operating illegally - according to my lawyer.

No it wouldn't. It would keep them there because the process would be harder than simply evading capture.

We're both speculating. The fact is, if the path is there, some will take the path. For those that don't, we're in no better/worse position than we are now. And having made the offer, I believe we have a cause to then deport those that don't as they are found.

Then I'll use some liberal terms. It's unjust and discriminatory to provide one group favor over another.

I've not suggested favoring one group over another. Those coming legally have an easy path. Those already here illegally have an arduous path that will provide something to the country (e.g., extensive community service, etc.), and those who come illegally in the future are summarily deported unless they applied for asylum. And it doesn't matter to me if you use liberal or conservative terms, so I'm not sure what that part is all about.

True.

They are predictors of behavior. Every analysis of future performance or behavior uses them.

They are predictors of future behavior in the absence of change. That is what is being suggested: change.

Didn't you suggest propping up those foreign economies to make them more competitive in relation to ours?

No - I did not. I said nothing about "propping up economies." That is a tactic that has been tried and has failed repeatedly.