He wants it because it will be some kind of "monument" to him. Many portions of the border are already walled off (as been discussed before). Don't expect to see any drop in crime either should more portions be walled off. That's just an emotional lightening rod for his supporters. If he was serious about the nation's security, he would have never said that Mexico would pay for it.
If he was serious about the nation's security, he would have never said that Mexico would pay for it.
Funny, but Mexico can still pay for it (albeit indirectly) with the money they realized (14 Billion) from the capture and prosecution of "El Chapo"....
Don't be stupid. The border patrol actually keep records and data about where the most crossings and arrests occur and where a wall makes the most sense. This is not about a monument to himself. Nanci and Chuck have never visted the border and talked to the people who have to worry about illegal crossings. Democrats have pulled the wool over your eyes.
Don't be stupid. The border patrol actually keep records and data about where the most crossings and arrests occur and where a wall makes the most sense. This is not about a monument to himself. Nanci and Chuck have never visted the border and talked to the people who have to worry about illegal crossings. Democrats have pulled the wool over your eyes.
No they haven't. And for the record, I'm a Republican. It's the current POTUS that has "pulled the wool over your eyes." I know all about immigration and the issues, complications, and the benefits it brings because I live in California. I live it and see it every day. Currently, the majority of illegal immigrants come from Asia, not from Central or South America. If my memory serves my right, all the 9/11 perpetrators came to the U.S. via the East Coast, not across the southern border. Timothy McVay was born and bread in the U.S., he was even a Gulf War veteran. The woman who accused the Duke lacrosse team of rape and sexual assault was a U.S. citizen. Get my point?
The bottom line is building some wall from Brownsville, TX to San Diego, CA will not solve the nation's social, crime, or its economic ills. And as I stated before, if Trump was truly serious about border security, why did he say "Mexico will pay for it."?
As for your "Chuck and Nancy" take, please do better. I'm also not stupid either.
[Edited on 2/15/2019 by StratDal]
Don't be stupid. The border patrol actually keep records and data about where the most crossings and arrests occur and where a wall makes the most sense. This is not about a monument to himself. Nanci and Chuck have never visted the border and talked to the people who have to worry about illegal crossings. Democrats have pulled the wool over your eyes.
Interesting that every single member of the House of Representatives that represents a district that touches the Mexican border, both Republicans and Democrats, oppose the wall. Shouldn't those representatives be the best informed as to the plusses and minuses of having a border wall?
I know all about immigration and the issues, complications, and the benefits it brings because I live in California
Where in California?
I say let him build his vanity wall, and then we can watch glee as it gets vandalized, spray painted, and eventually torn down in a big celebration once the trash bag is in prison for treason. It’ll be like the Berlin Wall coming down - a great moment for Germany, and it will be just as glorious when we spit on Trump’s wall. I hope he watches it get destroyed from his prison cell.
Don't be stupid. The border patrol actually keep records and data about where the most crossings and arrests occur and where a wall makes the most sense. This is not about a monument to himself. Nanci and Chuck have never visted the border and talked to the people who have to worry about illegal crossings. Democrats have pulled the wool over your eyes.
Facts vs ideology - The Great Wall Delusion Of Trump and his swallowers.
What was Trump's #1 issue in the midterms? How did that play out for him? What will be Trump's #1 issue if he's around to tun for prez again? Another losing strategy. The American people spoke and continue to speak. They have rejected the wall that "Mexico is going to pay for". The numbers just don't support & shake out for Trump.
https://www.businessinsider.com/border-crossings-arrests-trump-historic-low-data-charts-2018-4
When people say things like "crossings are at record lows", "historic lows" they do two things 1) they fail to ever put a number with that statement, even at the trough - In 2018 it was over 1000 a day - yeah not a problem I guess. And 2) they fail to acknowledge the trend line is significantly on the uptick.
That linked business insider story is almost a year old with data only going back to March 2018. Take a look at the most recent numbers please.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
FY 2018 saw over 100,000 more apprehensions and inadmissibles than FY 2017. And FY 2019 is averaging 60,554.25 apprehensions and inadmissibles per month so far this year. If that pace were to continue we would be at 3/4 of a million for this fiscal year! That my friends is not an all time low, that would break any high mark dating back 10 years. Take out the inadmissibles who show up at legal ports. That still means that they are apprehending 50,374.25 per month between legal ports on the southwest border so far this fiscal year. Run that average out for 12 months and we'll have over 600,000, again, would be a new high dating back to 2008. How is that for your "historic lows"?
Work needs done in all areas of illegal immigration enforcement. The southwest border is just one aspect. And the President is clearly overstating it, but however one looks at it, it is still a problem. Just because Trump is putting hyper focus on this aspect and not other aspects is no reason to fight actions taken on this aspect.
Don't be stupid. The border patrol actually keep records and data about where the most crossings and arrests occur and where a wall makes the most sense. This is not about a monument to himself. Nanci and Chuck have never visted the border and talked to the people who have to worry about illegal crossings. Democrats have pulled the wool over your eyes.
Interesting that every single member of the House of Representatives that represents a district that touches the Mexican border, both Republicans and Democrats, oppose the wall. Shouldn't those representatives be the best informed as to the plusses and minuses of having a border wall?
Which vote are you referring to? The HR 695 that was passed 217-185 12/20/2018? That contained the $5.7b in wall funding.
Only one of the border districts in Texas had a Republican, Will Hurd. He did vote against it, as did all the Democrat representatives in Texas border districts.
However, New Mexico's 2nd district representative, then Republican Steve Pearce, voted for it. So did Arizona 2nd district then rep Martha McSally.
In an issue as partisan as this, out of the 9 border districts, 6 were held by Democrats who not surprisingly voted against it. 2 of the 3 Republicans voted for it. Since the last election Hurd is now the only Republican in the US House that serves in a border district.
In which voted did they all oppose a bill that included wall funding or from where do you draw your conclusion?
When people say things like "crossings are at record lows", "historic lows" they do two things 1) they fail to ever put a number with that statement, even at the trough - In 2018 it was over 1000 a day - yeah not a problem I guess. And 2) they fail to acknowledge the trend line is significantly on the uptick.
That’s because the whole issue is one big Rorschach ink blot test. We all have access to the same articles and stats, and we see what we want to see.
If someone believes that illegals are a serious problem and needs an immediate resolution like a wall, what they are really saying is “it’s a serious problem for ME, and I would like to see a wall to satisfy my personal issue with it.” Which is ok I guess.
I do agree that we can all seek evidence to support our positions. But in making our cases we can purposefully or coincidentally leave related information out that might be counter to the point we are trying to state. So while I do what I can to present information, I am no different that I might overlook something else. I do try to be pretty good at acknowledging other arguments rather than just ignoring them. That can be a big difference among some people debating.
I just think illegal immigration enforcement is the right thing to do for our country and out of respect for legal immigration and our laws. If there was this much attention on any other aspect of enforcement, be it workplace raids, employer crack downs, VISA overstays, I would voice my opinions just as often and strongly. The southern border and the wall is the most discussed topic right now, so that is what I focus my attention on in conversation.
I don't need this on any kind of personal level. I suspect most for and against just advocate for the position that they feel is proper in how they view the nation. Perhaps some, I don't know, need or want this for some kind of personal insecurity thing or something. I have a hard time agreeing that it is such an issue for any kind of significant number of people, but many like to paint that picture.
Tear the whole wall down. I would strongly be against it and think it would be harmful to our nation, but I doubt my personal life or thoughts would change much at all. So it's not personal problem at all for ME. I think it is a problem for the US.
I know all about immigration and the issues, complications, and the benefits it brings because I live in California
Where in California?
Beverly Hills. 😛 Just being a smarty. I'm in the 805.
When people say things like "crossings are at record lows", "historic lows" they do two things 1) they fail to ever put a number with that statement, even at the trough - In 2018 it was over 1000 a day - yeah not a problem I guess. And 2) they fail to acknowledge the trend line is significantly on the uptick.
That linked business insider story is almost a year old with data only going back to March 2018. Take a look at the most recent numbers please.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
FY 2018 saw over 100,000 more apprehensions and inadmissibles than FY 2017. And FY 2019 is averaging 60,554.25 apprehensions and inadmissibles per month so far this year. If that pace were to continue we would be at 3/4 of a million for this fiscal year! That my friends is not an all time low, that would break any high mark dating back 10 years. Take out the inadmissibles who show up at legal ports. That still means that they are apprehending 50,374.25 per month between legal ports on the southwest border so far this fiscal year. Run that average out for 12 months and we'll have over 600,000, again, would be a new high dating back to 2008. How is that for your "historic lows"?
Work needs done in all areas of illegal immigration enforcement. The southwest border is just one aspect. And the President is clearly overstating it, but however one looks at it, it is still a problem. Just because Trump is putting hyper focus on this aspect and not other aspects is no reason to fight actions taken on this aspect.
Most of the articles I've read via generic searches seem to point to trend analysis of downward direction. Of course, I guess if I specifically went to targeted sites, I could find sites that specify to the contrary. We have a problem, but this issue is scope & magnitude. My belief is that it is grossly overstated, and a campaign mantra & failed follow through of promises does not make for a national emergency; maybe a delusion but not a national emergency.
When people say things like "crossings are at record lows", "historic lows" they do two things 1) they fail to ever put a number with that statement, even at the trough - In 2018 it was over 1000 a day - yeah not a problem I guess. And 2) they fail to acknowledge the trend line is significantly on the uptick.
That linked business insider story is almost a year old with data only going back to March 2018. Take a look at the most recent numbers please.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
FY 2018 saw over 100,000 more apprehensions and inadmissibles than FY 2017. And FY 2019 is averaging 60,554.25 apprehensions and inadmissibles per month so far this year. If that pace were to continue we would be at 3/4 of a million for this fiscal year! That my friends is not an all time low, that would break any high mark dating back 10 years. Take out the inadmissibles who show up at legal ports. That still means that they are apprehending 50,374.25 per month between legal ports on the southwest border so far this fiscal year. Run that average out for 12 months and we'll have over 600,000, again, would be a new high dating back to 2008. How is that for your "historic lows"?
Work needs done in all areas of illegal immigration enforcement. The southwest border is just one aspect. And the President is clearly overstating it, but however one looks at it, it is still a problem. Just because Trump is putting hyper focus on this aspect and not other aspects is no reason to fight actions taken on this aspect.
Most of the articles I've read via generic searches seem to point to trend analysis of downward direction. Of course, I guess if I specifically went to targeted sites, I could find sites that specify to the contrary. We have a problem, but this issue is scope & magnitude. My belief is that it is grossly overstated, and a campaign mantra & failed follow through of promises does not make for a national emergency; maybe a delusion but not a national emergency.
Trump's messaging and exaggerated facts on this undercuts some valid reasons to build more barriers. I can acknowledge the trends that had been going down until last year and now this year and all the misstatements that Trump makes on this, and ofcourse that Mexico is not paying for it, and still believe there is a need.
I know you and I both agree, we need to see planning on this. If DHS and CBP have some planning on where, how and how much new construction projects are going to cost, we need to see it.
And a National Emergency is not the way to do this. When parties or President's can't get their way to do something through the normal process, the solution should not be to find a way to go around the normal process.
C'mon now. Trump is just like any other President, he can't do any damage and no matter what he does, Democrats and liberals are more dangerous to the country anyway. Let him have what he wants.
At this point the dude could stab a baby on the podium and it wouldn't matter.
Let’s not forget the precedent this is setting for future liberal Democrat presidents. And let’s remember the billions that could be needed for military staffing, veterans in need, and small business growth.
Don't be stupid. The border patrol actually keep records and data about where the most crossings and arrests occur and where a wall makes the most sense. This is not about a monument to himself. Nanci and Chuck have never visted the border and talked to the people who have to worry about illegal crossings. Democrats have pulled the wool over your eyes.
Interesting that every single member of the House of Representatives that represents a district that touches the Mexican border, both Republicans and Democrats, oppose the wall. Shouldn't those representatives be the best informed as to the plusses and minuses of having a border wall?
Which vote are you referring to? The HR 695 that was passed 217-185 12/20/2018? That contained the $5.7b in wall funding.
Only one of the border districts in Texas had a Republican, Will Hurd. He did vote against it, as did all the Democrat representatives in Texas border districts.
However, New Mexico's 2nd district representative, then Republican Steve Pearce, voted for it. So did Arizona 2nd district then rep Martha McSally.
In an issue as partisan as this, out of the 9 border districts, 6 were held by Democrats who not surprisingly voted against it. 2 of the 3 Republicans voted for it. Since the last election Hurd is now the only Republican in the US House that serves in a border district.
In which voted did they all oppose a bill that included wall funding or from where do you draw your conclusion?
I didn't mention a particular vote, I only mentioned what every Representative of border districts have come out and stated. As you said, two former Republicans previously supported the wall - and both are now out of a job. Seems like the voters in those districts made their preference known. The remaining Republican in Texas is very anti wall. He has been very vocal about it. Again, the Representatives and voters of all the border districts clearly don't think there is any kind of emergency here.
For the pro-wall crowd, if the concern is tax burden, then why not go after visa overstays? That would create a much larger effect. It would also target European Mafia groups that come here to steal and murder. Is it wise to focus only on a small portion of our Mexican border?
I wouldn't assume Trump will get any additional money for his vanity/ reelection project....There's a very good chance his supposed "National Emergency" boondoggle will go nowhere once John Roberts votes against it.
Which of course will be a sigh of relief to the Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, who have to not only run for reelection in 2020, but know this charade, if approved by the Supreme Court, makes for a dangerous precedence.
What trump really is doing is appeasing his base and Ann Coulter and can, win or lose, claim he did everything in his power to attempt to build his wasteful wall in time for his reelection effort.
I didn't mention a particular vote, I only mentioned what every Representative of border districts have come out and stated. As you said, two former Republicans previously supported the wall - and both are now out of a job. Seems like the voters in those districts made their preference known. The remaining Republican in Texas is very anti wall. He has been very vocal about it. Again, the Representatives and voters of all the border districts clearly don't think there is any kind of emergency here.
Fair point. Although I might say that these representatives are not generally in favor of any tough anti-illegal immigration measures, but that would take some research to back up.
For the pro-wall crowd, if the concern is tax burden, then why not go after visa overstays? That would create a much larger effect. It would also target European Mafia groups that come here to steal and murder. Is it wise to focus only on a small portion of our Mexican border?
You are right that every aspect of the issue deserves equal attention and enforcement. I think if we mandated e-verify then the VISA overstay people couldn't work, if hopefully employers were scared enough to hire people who the system rejected, or would reject upon submitting factual information. If the VISA overstay people are going to submit fraudulent information to pass a check, then they will probably still be able to find work easier than otherwise. Or we could issue ankle brackets or some other means of tracking devices.
I wouldn't assume Trump will get any additional money for his vanity/ reelection project....There's a very good chance his supposed "National Emergency" boondoggle will go nowhere once John Roberts votes against it.
Which of course will be a sigh of relief to the Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, who have to not only run for reelection in 2020, but know this charade, if approved by the Supreme Court, makes for a dangerous precedence.
What trump really is doing is appeasing his base and Ann Coulter and can, win or lose, claim he did everything in his power to attempt to build his wasteful wall in time for his reelection effort.
Pelosi will force a vote in the senate to put Republican senators on record as to how they stand on this "emergency." Any Supreme Court decision will be too late to avoid this.
Which of course will be a sigh of relief to the Republicans, including Mitch McConnell, who have to not only run for reelection in 2020, but know this charade, if approved by the Supreme Court, makes for a dangerous precedence.
Fascinating to have witnessed the morphosis of Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Paul Ryan. Not sure if their core values changed, became part of Team MAGA, were offered lifetime Mar-a-Lago memberships, or just became invertebrates.
Don't be stupid. The border patrol actually keep records and data about where the most crossings and arrests occur and where a wall makes the most sense. This is not about a monument to himself. Nanci and Chuck have never visted the border and talked to the people who have to worry about illegal crossings. Democrats have pulled the wool over your eyes.
Here is Pelosi visiting the border:
https://www.kusi.com/nancy-pelosi-visits-us-mexico-border/
And once again, every single current member of the House of Representatives for districts along the entire length of the border oppose the wall. These politicians know the border better than anyone else. The fact they are in office should tell you the overall feelings of the majority of the voters along the border. If they felt illegal immigration lead to more crime, violence, etc, and that a wall would be beneficial, don't you think the districts, which would be most affected, would have pro wall stances?
Don't be stupid. The border patrol actually keep records and data about where the most crossings and arrests occur and where a wall makes the most sense. This is not about a monument to himself. Nanci and Chuck have never visted the border and talked to the people who have to worry about illegal crossings. Democrats have pulled the wool over your eyes.
Here is Pelosi visiting the border:
https://www.kusi.com/nancy-pelosi-visits-us-mexico-border/
And once again, every single current member of the House of Representatives for districts along the entire length of the border oppose the wall. These politicians know the border better than anyone else. The fact they are in office should tell you the overall feelings of the majority of the voters along the border. If they felt illegal immigration lead to more crime, violence, etc, and that a wall would be beneficial, don't you think the districts, which would be most affected, would have pro wall stances?
Not only those districts, but the majority of the electorate don't want this wall.....As you pointed out, the beauty of this whole "National Emergency" issue is that Trump may lose, but due to the rules of such declarations, the Republicans can't hide from the mess Trump has put them in. They stand to lose too.....And maybe a much bigger loss.
Imagine an elected official from a border district in Texas voting on the record, to give Trump money to potentially utilize eminent domain to take private land to build a wall. The supposed party of small government....Wow!
How about giving away free hot lunches nationwide to hungry schoolchildren, Donald? Maybe more important that a wall?
JUST AS URGENT: A huge raise for all grade school teachers nationwide.
My brother's wife teaches 3rd grade in the heart of L.A. She was teaching kindergarten two years ago then they transferred her to third grade WITH TWO WEEKS NOTICE. Someone with more seniority nabbed her kindergarten job.
Right now she is averaging around ONE student with English as their native language in a class of 25 students. Can you even IMAGINE the intelligence and patience it takes to do that job?? I sure don't have it...........
My sister Karen who died of cancer two years ago was saddled with the exact same challenge when she was teaching 3rd/4th grade combined in L.A. years ago: An average of one student out of 25 whose native language was English. Sometimes she'd get a new student thrown into her class from some foreign country who didn't have one single most rudimentary skill in the English language. Can you even IMAGINE that? She told me she would do word association, hold up a picture of a tree with the word tree next to it.
I don't know what they are paying my brother's wife, but it should be at a minimum $100,000. WHY? Because people who are capable of doing the job are extremely, extremely rare. She doesn't tell me what she makes, but my brother has complained many times on Facebook about her low salary.
Give her a big, big BIG raise, Donald, there is NOBODY who deserves it more. And F*CK your wall....
And before anyone starts...........this does NOT mean that I am against border enforcement.
[Edited on 2/16/2019 by robslob]
In terms of completing their pet projects, Obama got Obamacare passed with votes, whereas Trump fell way short, and looking embarrassingly bad in comparison to Obama’s skills and accomplishments. Every verbal attack against Obama and Democrats is Trump’s way of handling his inferiority to Obama.
Rob, you cant deny illegals put an enormous strain on resources in California. Your story is a reflection of the realiity of sanctuary states. There's only so many free lunches to go around.
Rob, you cant deny illegals put an enormous strain on resources in California. Your story is a reflection of the realiity of sanctuary states. There's only so many free lunches to go around.
What's the ratio of illegals draining resources vs. citizens draining resources?
In terms of completing their pet projects, Obama got Obamacare passed with votes, whereas Trump fell way short, and looking embarrassingly bad in comparison to Obama’s skills and accomplishments. Every verbal attack against Obama and Democrats is Trump’s way of handling his inferiority to Obama.
The Greatest Dealmaker In All Of Human History had two years to whip 10 compromise votes.
Instead, we have this temper tantrum reality TV charade.
Now, just my me saying that, simply making an observation on what actually happened, I'm just another clueless leftist who frames everything around how much I hate Trump.
We have folks around here clamoring for deeper conversations. What's the point?
