U.S. Government Set to Shutdown for Third Time This Year

vla1ne · April 8, 2019

Congress is not under any obligation to work with Trump on this.

I am not saying that there is nowhere that cannot be pulled from. I am saying that Trump and his administration has consistently violated any and all standard practice of obtaining that money.

If you are unhappy with the angle that I am approaching this from, then I would appreciate if you could guide any of my points that you feel are irrelevant towards the points that you are more interested in.

To answer your hypothesis, one possible solution is simply to focus on hiring more people for border patrol, so that you have 50 people employed to prevent illegal immigration. But, again, that is only hypothetical. Your test still does not prove that a wall is necessary. Merely that, as we have seen, the potential personnel and the wall are competing for funds to both be present in this scenario.

You have explained that to me based on your own theories. The facts show that Trump has failed to compensate that cost, and dismissing it as a feud between sides serves only to draw blame away from Trump.

The way I see it, our positions are opposed because you are inclined to lay the blame solely on Congress, whereas I am inclined to say that Trump is to blame for being unable to properly secure that funding, and abusing his power in retaliation. So I must ask, do you think that Trump would be right to reduce foreign aid? Do you believe that the Pentagon attempting to move military personnel funds at the risk of reprogramming authority was the right call to make?

I previously said “I do not think that a physical barrier would be the best possible way to deter or block them.” I conceded that it could delay problems until border patrol gets there, and I suggested expanding ports of entry.

I already addressed your combination, and I have talked about more than just the funding. I was willing to think about the hypothetical, but I feel that I need to step back from that for now.

Nope. Not playing that game. I’ve already decided to bring money into the question. If you are uncomfortable with whether or not it relates your argument, that’s fine. But I am perfectly content to keep mentioning it, because it is related to my answers to your question. You can decide what questions to ask. What you cannot decide are which answers should be allowed.

You’re right, it’s not that hard. Good thing I already answered your question earlier. Now can you move on, so I don’t have to reiterate answers I already gave you in February?

I mean, Trump’s national emergency is itself an abuse of power. And once again, you make it about how Congress is to blame. We have already been over this, but I’ll remind you that Congress had stated that Trump had no proper plan. That doesn’t mean the people blocking will not allow Trump the ability to try and complete the task, it’s that Trump has so far failed to prove to Congress that he can complete the task. In the two years he had before Democrats took back the House, he was not able to deliver a decisive plan to a GOP that controlled both chambers of Congress. No, they did not have a supermajority, but they still had a majority power. From 2017 through most of 2018, I cannot understand how it would have just come down to “Congress is blocking Trump.”

Yes, I did. You can keep claiming that I do not read your comments or my own sources, but I did read your statement. Again, I’m just not sure that the answer I gave was the answer you wanted.

Ah, I love how it’s still solely my fault for me “misunderstanding” you, and not… you know, you simply making arguments that were countered with factual evidence.

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/asylum-united-states

“As a signatory to the 1967 Protocol, and through U.S. immigration law, the United States has legal obligations to provide protection to those who qualify as refugees.”

I’m sorry, what was that about the U.S. having no obligation to accept anybody? Because it seems like your entire argument here is easily disproven by law.

You can stand by your point, and I’m sure you’ll claim that my citation is irrelevant because it only applies to legal immigration, and your comment was only about illegal immigration, but before you try that “correction” for the umpteenth time, I would like to point out that you were focusing entirely on the discretion of the country to accept immigrants, regardless of whether the immigrant in question is legal or illegal.

Angela Merkel even had to call Trump out on this one. Sorry, but there is absolutely no possible way your argument here holds any water.

Nope. To me, the main point of that comment was emphasized by “ensuring that unsavory elements and unknown foreign factors are kept to a minimum”, and I take issue with that claim. I think there’s a clear line that must be drawn between controlling your borders to ensure the country’s stability, and being flat-out xenophobic with judgments against those “unknown foreign factors.”

And I just establish that this country actually does have an obligation to accept people. This isn’t a matter of me “misunderstanding” you. It might be in your best interest to consider that sometimes, maybe someone isn’t “misunderstanding” you. Sometimes, maybe you’re just flat-out wrong.

And, again, I’ve shown that the United States is instead under an obligation to accept refugees from another country. You don’t have to believe that this country has to accept people, but it does. A more accurate position that be that you disagree with the law. That would be more consistent with advocating for better laws, or at least what you think would be better laws.

To answer your question, I thought that the backlog would be relevant as an argument against your points because you were discussing how America needs to control its borders, and I gave an example of how it has failed to do so. I’m happy you agree that the current immigration system should be reformed, so… I honestly don’t get what you’re hung up on with this point? You and I are in complete agreement about something that I brought up to directly answer your point. There was no need for dismissing it yet again.

And I responded to it as you had asked.

A) I think I’ve established more than enough times that this point is false, so you can stop repeating that. I know I’d sure like to stop pointing it out.

B) Not really sure if you’re saying anything new there. I understood that you think the immigration should be corrected. Let me repeat that, before you once again claim that I “misunderstood” you: I understood that you think the immigration should be corrected.

And as you can see, I’ve offered you citations, including my own past answers your questions, the latter of which I hope will get us back to the same page that we were on before. I have answered your requests at my own discretion, and I’ve even offered to expand the discussion further beyond the points we’ve raised. I addressed your claims line by line, and fully refuted one of your most recurring arguments.

That’s the reason trump is attempting to negotiate. He’s been willing to talk from the start, but many of them have been unwilling to even so much as grant the smallest of his proposals.

The money can be pulled from places that do no harm to outr country, and he has tried time and again to do so using the normal methods, as the shutdown demonstrates, democrats are 100% unwilling to actually try to work with him, and there’s video from his presidential run all the way through now demonstrating just how resistant democrats have been from the very beginning. From the start, trump has been trying t work with them, they’ve been against him the whole time. The pentagon funds were legal and freed up by the pentagon themselves, they blocked it, the 7 billion from spare funds? He tried to get it long ago, they blocked him the whole time, the foreign aid money? They were completely happy to let him spend 10 billion on foreign countries, but completely refuse to let him use it for American border security. ICE and border patrol? They reduced the beds, directly impacting the capacity of ICE and border patrol to do their jobs. We’ve seen time and again how the standard methods work out, unconventional methods are the only ones left, like executive orders.

My point in that hypothetical was that a form of barrier eases the burden on each individual worker, and does not at all conflict with the effectiveness of hiring more people. You can either chase people all across an empty field, or you can have a solid barricade. Do you believe a barricade is a detriment to border security? I personally believe it would make ach agent that much more effective, as they would be able to apprehend more illegals with less effort while a barrier helps hinder cartel and other criminal progress across the border.

I have explained it to you based upon the available funding that we know is coming through, that would not negatively impact America. 10 billion yearly, drawn from multiple sources that total 19 billion yearly is by no means a stretch. That’s just using the ones that have been mentioned by trump and republicans in congress. Given some searching I could very likely find even more to draw from, further increasing the overall ceiling of the budget while remaining 10 billion yearly. The house speaker herself objected to the wall, not because there’s no way to cover the cost, but because she and her fellow house members believe that the wall is somehow immoral. These are the words from democrats themselves. I’m just pointing them out.

One of the first things any military group does when setting up a perimeter to keep people out is establishing some manner of barrier. If it works for military defense, why exactly would it not work for a border? Yes, we can have more people, but look at the numbers, there’s 2143 people coming across daily, at a low estimate. Trying to chase that many people is just irrational, and puts far more strain on border patrol personnel than it would with a wall. Would you disagree that with or without more people, a wall would allow those people to do their job more effectively? As for expanding points of entry, you can do that with a wall too, and in fact, a wall would better allow for said enhancements, as you could grant the additional personnel to the now larger openings without worrying as much for the reduced forces elsewhere.

I addressed money already. That’s a moot point as I laid out how it could be funded. It’s a done question as far as we’re concerned. Trumps own plans will determine what’s done in government, but as far as us here, I’ve given more than enough of an answer to the question.

Good, you agree that a wall would enhance border security then.

Declaring a national emergency in response to illegal immigrants, drug dealers and human traffickers entering the nation is a violation of his powers? Taking out 7 billion to address the question of a wall that is meant to respond to this problem, after all other avenues have been blocked by congress is not within the powers of the president? Interesting conclusion when here I thought that was an exact fit to the situation.

You've got a point. The only people we actually have to accept are people who qualify for asylum. In 2017 we even accepted 23,669 people for asylum claims. That’s a rather large number, but outside of asylum, we still have no obligation to accept anybody. And even including asylum rights, the president has the right to suspend entry from any region if he believe applicants would damage the United States in any way, the way he did the caravans a while back. Something the supreme court upheld on the earlier travel ban as well. This doesn’t change all that much about my point though. It has a caveat that i forgot, but even asylum claims can be, and are refused. For example, there were tens of thousands of people on the caravan back in November who declared they were on it seeking asylum, and Mexico essentially said “Okay, we’ll grant you asylum, you can stay here and get your life together” many of them accepted, and only a few refused, and continued towards America. trump refused a large number of them, and only the most peaceful of the group managed to make it in. The rest got turned away. This is also one of the reasons trump has been working towards making mexico a safe third country alongside here and Canada. to ensure that america doesn't get overloaded by the number of asylum applicants that we have to deal with. Trump can also have said claims screened from outside the country, meaning that even with asylum seekers, they can keep people out until they confirm that the claims are valid. So to correct my claim; With the exception of accepted asylum claims, The United states is under no obligation to accept anybody who wishes to enter. We get a couple to a dozen thousand accepted claims monthly, but beyond those, exactly who among the say, 66,450 in Febuary, as cited by winter, are we obliged to allow entry?

You pointed out a mistake in my argument of us having to accept nobody. That said, applying asylum to something like the number cited by winter, using the number of people caught as a sample, just over 3% of them would actually make it in under claims of asylum. (i know, the number isnt a direct tie, but as it is related to the number of illegals who want entry, it qualifies for this particular point) And that's just for one month. Asylum is a flaw in my point, but it's not all that large a problem.

I’ve told you, people who come here legally are generally fine by me. If they’re following the legal process, then why would I be against them? They may or may not be accepted, that'a another discussion entirely, but they at least have enough respect for this country to come in through the front door proper. There’s definitely issues I have with the immigration system, but the people who come over legally are not going to be affected by the wall, and we can all already agree that immigration reform is a thing that needs to happen.

That’s just you reading negative connotations into the term. I consider that to be a nebulous term that means no harm to people who honestly come here to work and make a better life for themselves legally, But fine. That’s perfectly cool. I can take out the foreign elements bit, leave the unsavory elements portion (gang members, drug runners, human traffickers, rapists, murderers, ect), and we now agree fully.

Aside from accepting credible asylum seekers, the U.S. is under no obligation to accept anybody. simple change to the point, as i forgot that we agreed to help those from countries in poorer condition from legitimate crisis.

The backlog has nothing to do with the borders, it relates to the people who came to the front door honestly. They are filing the proper paperwork and it’s going through the system. That’s not a border failure, that’s the immigration systems gears grinding slowly along as usual.

We accepted 28,000 total immigrants in 2017, we have a current average of 23,000 from your own source, so by those two facts we can tell that the U.S. is currently trying to hold the borders closed, but is having problems due to the asylum clause, which makes enough sense.

You have refuted the claim that we don’t have to accept anybody, that removes one aspect, making that claim false. So it has been remedied appropriately. Aside from the accepted asylum seekers, we don’t have to accept anybody. There. We are now on the same page on everything.

Phantom Roxas · April 9, 2019

@@vla1ne

[spoiler=Long response, so putting this in a to prevent bloating the page]

That’s the reason trump is attempting to negotiate. He’s been willing to talk from the start, but many of them have been unwilling to even so much as grant the smallest of his proposals.

Trump has been willing to talk, and they told him no. Maybe the issue isn’t that they’ve been “unwilling” to grant him the “smallest” of his proposals, it could just be that his proposals are half-baked. Again, your argument only seems to go as far as blaming Congress for rejecting Trump, rather than considering whether Trump has failed to make a persuasive argument.

The money can be pulled from places that do no harm to outr country, and he has tried time and again to do so using the normal methods, as the shutdown demonstrates, democrats are 100% unwilling to actually try to work with him, and there’s video from his presidential run all the way through now demonstrating just how resistant democrats have been from the very beginning. From the start, trump has been trying t work with them, they’ve been against him the whole time. The pentagon funds were legal and freed up by the pentagon themselves, they blocked it, the 7 billion from spare funds? He tried to get it long ago, they blocked him the whole time, the foreign aid money? They were completely happy to let him spend 10 billion on foreign countries, but completely refuse to let him use it for American border security. ICE and border patrol? They reduced the beds, directly impacting the capacity of ICE and border patrol to do their jobs. We’ve seen time and again how the standard methods work out, unconventional methods are the only ones left, like executive orders.

The money transfer from the military personnel account was criticized specifically because it was not normal. While the transfer was legal, they were called out for violating a “gentleman’s agreement” (Their words, not mine), so it still had consequences. And those consequences do not amount to “Because it’s Trump”, it’s because it went against standard practice. He failed to follow the standard method in that case, so it’s actually closer to the unconventional methods you’re referring to.

The shutdown - by Trump’s own admission - was his own fault, not the Democrats’. Even when Republicans had the majority in both chambers, Trump had difficulty working with Congress. Again, the issue seems that Trump has traditionally been the issue, not giving Congress a coherent plan to work with. It made it difficult for him to pass the legislation when the Republicans were in control.

My point in that hypothetical was that a form of barrier eases the burden on each individual worker, and does not at all conflict with the effectiveness of hiring more people. You can either chase people all across an empty field, or you can have a solid barricade. Do you believe a barricade is a detriment to border security? I personally believe it would make ach agent that much more effective, as they would be able to apprehend more illegals with less effort while a barrier helps hinder cartel and other criminal progress across the border.

I understand the logic behind how a barricade could improve border security. However, I’m concerned that the Berlin Wall would serve as the precedent that Trump’s wall would follow. I highly recommend reading that article, because it brings up the rhetoric used to justify the Berlin Wall, as well as why it ultimately failed to work.

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

I have explained it to you based upon the available funding that we know is coming through, that would not negatively impact America. 10 billion yearly, drawn from multiple sources that total 19 billion yearly is by no means a stretch. That’s just using the ones that have been mentioned by trump and republicans in congress. Given some searching I could very likely find even more to draw from, further increasing the overall ceiling of the budget while remaining 10 billion yearly. The house speaker herself objected to the wall, not because there’s no way to cover the cost, but because she and her fellow house members believe that the wall is somehow immoral. These are the words from democrats themselves. I’m just pointing them out.

And I’ve shown that it would indeed negatively impact America in the long-run.

Yes, the wall is indeed immoral. See the above article regarding the Berlin Wall. While I realize that those are the words from Democrats themselves, I do not believe that they are wrong to state it.

One of the first things any military group does when setting up a perimeter to keep people out is establishing some manner of barrier. If it works for military defense, why exactly would it not work for a border? Yes, we can have more people, but look at the numbers, there’s 2143 people coming across daily, at a low estimate. Trying to chase that many people is just irrational, and puts far more strain on border patrol personnel than it would with a wall. Would you disagree that with or without more people, a wall would allow those people to do their job more effectively? As for expanding points of entry, you can do that with a wall too, and in fact, a wall would better allow for said enhancements, as you could grant the additional personnel to the now larger openings without worrying as much for the reduced forces elsewhere.

I think that a wall would ultimately make no difference. Again, if people are that committed to “illegally” enter the country, then they are going to do so regardless of the wall. How would the wall reduce the average of people coming across daily? Because I don’t think it would, and if it won’t, then like you said, trying to chase that many people is just irrational.

I addressed money already. That’s a moot point as I laid out how it could be funded. It’s a done question as far as we’re concerned. Trumps own plans will determine what’s done in government, but as far as us here, I’ve given more than enough of an answer to the question.

Sorry, vla1ne, but you don’t speak for me. It’s a done question as far as you are individually concerned. It remains relevant as far as I am concerned. You have given an answer to the question, but just as you have dismissed my answers to your questions, I reserve the right to dismiss your answers to my question, which I did at the beginning of this post.

I won’t hold it against you if you decide not to pursue this point any further in your future responses. However, I still consider it an ongoing question.

Declaring a national emergency in response to illegal immigrants, drug dealers and human traffickers entering the nation is a violation of his powers? Taking out 7 billion to address the question of a wall that is meant to respond to this problem, after all other avenues have been blocked by congress is not within the powers of the president? Interesting conclusion when here I thought that was an exact fit to the situation.

He’s abusing his powers because Congress has the power to decide where the money originates from, and he is disregarding the authority that the Constitution grants them. If Congress has blocked his avenues, then no, it is not within his power decide “Screw it, I’m taking the money anyway.”

You've got a point. The only people we actually have to accept are people who qualify for asylum. In 2017 we even accepted 23,669 people for asylum claims. That’s a rather large number, but outside of asylum, we still have no obligation to accept anybody. And even including asylum rights, the president has the right to suspend entry from any region if he believe applicants would damage the United States in any way, the way he did the caravans a while back. Something the supreme court upheld on the earlier travel ban as well. This doesn’t change all that much about my point though. It has a caveat that i forgot, but even asylum claims can be, and are refused. For example, there were tens of thousands of people on the caravan back in November who declared they were on it seeking asylum, and Mexico essentially said “Okay, we’ll grant you asylum, you can stay here and get your life together” many of them accepted, and only a few refused, and continued towards America. trump refused a large number of them, and only the most peaceful of the group managed to make it in. The rest got turned away. This is also one of the reasons trump has been working towards making mexico a safe third country alongside here and Canada. to ensure that america doesn't get overloaded by the number of asylum applicants that we have to deal with. Trump can also have said claims screened from outside the country, meaning that even with asylum seekers, they can keep people out until they confirm that the claims are valid. So to correct my claim; With the exception of accepted asylum claims, The United states is under no obligation to accept anybody who wishes to enter. We get a couple to a dozen thousand accepted claims monthly, but beyond those, exactly who among the say, 66,450 in Febuary, as cited by winter, are we obliged to allow entry?

I feel like you’re treating that caveat as though it is much more minor than it actually is. “Outside of an obligation to do one very specific thing, we do not have to do that one very specific thing.”

Stop me if you’ve heard this one before. If I claim that nobody has ever said something, and you can point to one example where someone did say something, doesn’t that immediately disprove my point? If I were to respond to you by saying “Aside from that one guy, nobody has ever said that”, that would a pretty weak comeback, wouldn’t it? Almost as if I’m backpedaling because you singlehandedly showed that my all-or-nothing statement was inherently false?

Like, I’m sorry, but your question is about as dumb as “Aside from red, blue, and yellow, there is no such thing as a primary color.” It’s specifically designed to rule out the answers to the question, because without that huge caveat, it’s so easy to reject.

If you want to repeat the question and ask me to answer it, I won't, because it’s such a ridiculously stupid question. You’re just wrong on this one, vla1ne. Just take the L here, and save us both from wasting our time on this point.

You pointed out a mistake in my argument of us having to accept nobody. That said, applying asylum to something like the number cited by winter, using the number of people caught as a sample, just over 3% of them would actually make it in under claims of asylum. (i know, the number isnt a direct tie, but as it is related to the number of illegals who want entry, it qualifies for this particular point) And that's just for one month. Asylum is a flaw in my point, but it's not all that large a problem.

I mean, this just sounds like you were shown to be irrefutably wrong and are trying to weasel your way into claiming a win here, so I’m not exactly going to care about the numbers.

I’ve told you, people who come here legally are generally fine by me. If they’re following the legal process, then why would I be against them? They may or may not be accepted, that'a another discussion entirely, but they at least have enough respect for this country to come in through the front door proper. There’s definitely issues I have with the immigration system, but the people who come over legally are not going to be affected by the wall, and we can all already agree that immigration reform is a thing that needs to happen.

Yes, I got that. I told you I understood that. You don’t need to worry about repeating that point to me.

That’s just you reading negative connotations into the term. I consider that to be a nebulous term that means no harm to people who honestly come here to work and make a better life for themselves legally, But fine. That’s perfectly cool. I can take out the foreign elements bit, leave the unsavory elements portion (gang members, drug runners, human traffickers, rapists, murderers, ect), and we now agree fully.

No, I’m not reading any negative connotations, but good effort in trying to speak for me. I just expect this administration to keep conflating the people who do honestly come her to work and make a better life for themselves with those traffickers and rapists.

Aside from accepting credible asylum seekers, the U.S. is under no obligation to accept anybody. simple change to the point, as i forgot that we agreed to help those from countries in poorer condition from legitimate crisis.

So we’re just going to completely ignore one category because it singlehandedly deconstructs your all-or-nothing generalization? No, that’s not a “simple” change to the point. It’s just trying to repeat the same damn question, while pretending that the caveat doesn’t undermine your argument.

The backlog has nothing to do with the borders, it relates to the people who came to the front door honestly. They are filing the proper paperwork and it’s going through the system. That’s not a border failure, that’s the immigration systems gears grinding slowly along as usual.

Remind me, where are the asylum claims filed? Oh, right. At the border. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, because your arguments now seem to be “Aside from this one thing that holds instrinsic value to the subject of the discussion, it has nothing to do with the discussion.”

Look, I do expect that you’re approaching this with the intention every answer I give you, but when those answers are directly related to context, it just looks kind of silly to keep up the “That has nothing to do with this” act. It had already run thin, but I was least willing to consider that maybe I was taking things too personally, but no, this pretty much guarantees that you’re just automatically responding “That has nothing to do with this” regardless of the context. I just want you to be aware that your programmed responses really aren’t working anymore.

We accepted 28,000 total immigrants in 2017, we have a current average of 23,000 from your own source, so by those two facts we can tell that the U.S. is currently trying to hold the borders closed, but is having problems due to the asylum clause, which makes enough sense.

Those numbers seem fine. Maybe the issue is that Trump needs to stop trying to close the border. It’s not like that’s going well for him right now.

You have refuted the claim that we don’t have to accept anybody, that removes one aspect, making that claim false. So it has been remedied appropriately. Aside from the accepted asylum seekers, we don’t have to accept anybody. There. We are now on the same page on everything.

Sorry, but we’re still not on the same page. I’m worried that I might be perceived as moving the goalposts here, so I feel the burden is on me to clarify my position.

I definitively refuted the claim that we don’t have to accept anybody. You can’t exactly turn that decisive evidence to the contrary into some caveat. That’s not an “aspect” of the argument. It is the entire argument. Attempting to diminish the signifance of that evidence is not a remedy. It is merely repeating the question as if it will now be more to difficult to disprove.

Do not claim that we are on the same page until you agree that your argument cannot be salvaged, because that caveat does defeat the claim that it’s attached to. I am stating my position here and now so that you not misunderstand me again. Is that fair?

Ryusei the Morning Star · April 10, 2019

CBP just released March's border apprehensions. Here's the context for that. Each agent averaged less than 6 apprehensions for the month, the highest since April '08 but down from 25 in March 2000. This is the ones we caught btw

Phantom Roxas · April 10, 2019

Interesting quotes from the person you copied that from.

https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/status/1115718334375440385

The immediate response to your tweet: "Rather than increasing capacity to process migrants at ports of entry, CBP is forcing them between ports, so it can arrest them and demonize them as *illegal* immigrants."

So there we go. The proper isn't that an unknown number of illegal immigrants are crossing the border because they have "something to hide." The CBP is forcing immigrants to become "illegal", since they were denied the ability to legally migrate. If you want to blame anyone for illegal immigrants, the immigrants seem to be innocent here. It's the CBP's fault for neglecting their responsibilities

https://twitter.com/David_J_Bier/status/1115603258037248000

"Nielsen 'argued that if you close all the ports of entry all you would be doing is ending legal trade and travel, but migrants will just go between ports.' She already closed ports to almost all asylum seekers!"

So more dishonesty from this administration and its supporters. They claim that you can totally just use the legal ports of entry, but then close those ports, and wonder why people are using illegal methods rather than the "legal" ports. When you've closed the legal options in direct violation of the country's international obligations, you are making every option illegal, even though that means the United States is now breaking the law. Again, I'm not interested in demonizing immigrants for breaking a "law" when that law is itself illegal.

Despite vla1ne's attempt to maintain a claim otherwise, and then a weak effort at trying to "win" on an technically rather than ever admit he was proven wrong, the United States does have an obligation to accept asylum seekers. The CBP's "apprehensions" are dishonest at best.

vla1ne · April 11, 2019

@@vla1ne

[spoiler=Long response, so putting this in a to prevent bloating the page]

You do remember the time where, right before trump’s speech, Pelosi made a list of everything that she wanted from trump in order to open negotiations. Then, during that very speech, he addressed all of those things, and she still said no. that’s the level of opposition that trump faces from them.

The money that the pentagon was willing to grant was what they could pull up from their own budget. Gentlemen’s agreement or not, normal or not, it was money that was well within their rights to give. There were no laws broken and it was all put out fairly. Had it not been blocked, nobody would have missed anything. As for trumps majority, The republicans may have had a majority, but it generally takes 61 votes to get past blockades. That’s the reason that compromise is so important, and the reason that bills still have to be bipartisan. We saw the same thing when Obama was president and had a majority, where it was the republicans blocking everything. Majority being blocked is nothing new in congress. It’s one of the things that make congress congress at this point.

Yeah, trump owned the shutdown, which is why he wasn’t the one who took expensive vacations outside the country on taxpayer dime while normal government workers weren’t being paid.

The berlin wall vs the walls Egypt uses, the walls iran uses, the list could go on. Even military establishes some manner of physical barrier no matter where they set up, because a wall ensures that the only people coming across the border are those who are allowed to do so. We have the stats from the better portions of the wall built during the bush era. And again, there has been clamor for a wall of some sort since as recently as obama’s first run. Also, the berlin wall divided Berlin from Berlin, the border wall divides the United States from Central and South America. There is a blatant difference between the two.

The Berlin wall is nothing like this wall. The two are completely different things, built for completely different reasons. To compare them, trump would have to be building a wall dividing the United States east from west coast, or something similar. America isn’t being cut in half by a wall, America is getting some insulation from drug cartels, and other border related crime, That will hopefully help reduce the strain upon the border agents.

They will have much more difficulty with a barrier blocking them. And they will be caught more often with an object delaying them that is a fact.

Hold what against me? Fact is, we do not need to send 10 billion to central/south America if they are sending their citizens to America anyways. The 7 billion that he pulled with his executive order is in court now, and the verdict will either be yes or no, ending that question regardless. The pentagon broke no laws doing what it did, and agreement or not, they were well within the books for everything they did, properly budgeting and booking it all, so blocking it was something they had no need to do. The money I listed was all on the books, and all explained to you more than well enough. What laws were broken? None at all. The money that is/was supposed to go to the walls is/was all above the table and on the books proper. The money going to foreign aid being spent on the states instead is not something that other countries can complain about considering the money is our own to spend in the first place. It is not immoral to establish a barrier between two countries. Other countries to the south of us have citizens attempting to come across the borders illegally all the time. We don’t have Americans and canadians trying to break across to live in central/south America. It’s the other way around.

That is pretty much what an executive order allows him to do. So yeah, it’s being fought in court right now, but past presidents have done this, it’s not something that’s wholly unprecedented. Presidents reallocating funds via executive order is pretty common really.

Outside of accepting people whose situations are so bad that they have nowhere else they can go without likely being hunted down and prosecuted for existing, we don’t have to accept people. Yeah, it’s a pretty narrow range. And yeah, I did step back the comment, because you pointed out that asylum is still a thing that we agreed to. That’s called fixing my comment. If I say one thing, and somebody reminds me that there is an exception to the rule, then yeah, applying that caveat to future comments is perfectly natural. Did you expect me to jus stubbornly push ahead with said argument without fixing the one hole in the comment? There’s a reason I tend to avoid as many blanket statements as possible, because caveats like that often exist. I made a blanket statement, and you pointed out a thing it doesn’t cover. I corrected that miss.

No, it would be “Aside from X reason, we don’t have to do Y” there is exactly one exception, and the only reason the numbers are even as high as they are, is because of expansions in the asylum policy by Obama, which helped cause the rise of asylum claims.

Irrefutably wrong? As far as the blanked statement? Definitely. But that’s why I stopped using it, because it was proven wrong. That said, Who but asylum seekers do we have to accept by law? Nobody. The expansions increased the number of “credible fears” thanks to the addition of gang violence and domestic violence.

Is unfiltered islam compatible with western values? Serious question time here. Is the current political frame of Venezuela compatible with American values? Are Chinese family values (say… killing your daughters because you want more sons) currently in line with American values? Is killing white people on a whim in line with American values? Is slavery in line with American values? Is throwing gay people from the rooftops an American value? Is screwing little boys and raping women ~~outside of hollywood~~ a part of Americas values? The list goes on and on. Those are the kinds of foreign elements and unsavory things that I’m talking about when I say what I did. Things that America has managed to grow past, never adopted in the first place, Or that the vast majority of Americans generally frown upon. Things that would only make America worse as a country. Do you agree with those things being not good for America?

When I say they have nothing to do with the borders, I mean it has nothing to do with illegal immigration. The discussion topic that I am mainly talking about is not the people who are going through the proper channels, we’ve been over that. The people in the backlog are filing the correct paperwork, waiting properly, and actually obeying the laws. So let me reiterate both of our points:

“I’ve told you, people who come here legally are generally fine by me. If they’re following the legal process, then why would I be against them? They may or may not be accepted, that'a another discussion entirely, but they at least have enough respect for this country to come in through the front door proper. There’s definitely issues I have with the immigration system, but the people who come over legally are not going to be affected by the wall, and we can all already agree that immigration reform is a thing that needs to happen. ”

”Yes, I got that. I told you I understood that. You don’t need to worry about repeating that point to me.”

Are they filing properly for asylum? Yeah. Did we both already agree that the immigration system needs reworking? Yes. So do you or I have a problem with them? No. We’ve agreed on all that multiple times. That is why the backlog has nothing to do with the discussion. We have both already agreed on all the things related to that particular topic.

Yes, you refuted that claim, so I clarified it appropriately, removing the flawed aspect. That is how an argument works. As I really did forget about the asylum agreements i agreed that i messed that up. You refuted the blanket claim, that was my mistake. I gave you that 100%. I then subtracted that from my point because it was a mistake. It’s already been given to you, the new point is what it now looks like when corrected. Am i incorrect when i say "Apart from asylum we don't have to accept anybody"? That's why i rarely use blanket statements, because there's often a gap in "absolute" arguments. so i instead corrected it.

Phantom Roxas · April 11, 2019

You do remember the time where, right before trump’s speech, Pelosi made a list of everything that she wanted from trump in order to open negotiations. Then, during that very speech, he addressed all of those things, and she still said no. that’s the level of opposition that trump faces from them.

We've been over this. Trump only repeated offers that were already rejected. She still said no because if they were already rejected, and Trump was just bundling rejected offers together, without any new changes, then he should have expected that he would get the same answers as the last time he made those offers.

So no, still don't see how Pelosi is the problem for opposing Trump here. If he was rejected once before, and he doesn't change anything the second time around, then that's on him. What, specifically, did he address that had not already been rejected before?

The money that the pentagon was willing to grant was what they could pull up from their own budget. Gentlemen’s agreement or not, normal or not, it was money that was well within their rights to give. There were no laws broken and it was all put out fairly. Had it not been blocked, nobody would have missed anything. As for trumps majority, The republicans may have had a majority, but it generally takes 61 votes to get past blockades. That’s the reason that compromise is so important, and the reason that bills still have to be bipartisan. We saw the same thing when Obama was president and had a majority, where it was the republicans blocking everything. Majority being blocked is nothing new in congress. It’s one of the things that make congress congress at this point.

Those rights were contingent on the Gentlemen's agreement. It is only within their rights to give for that specific reason, so if they violate their agreement, then it is perfectly acceptable to revoke that right from then. So no, it was not in fact put out fairly, and it risked them lose the right they had.

Compromise is a two-way street, so once more I will state the problem we have had is that you are laying the blame on the Democrats for rejecting Trump, whereas I maintain that the Republicans have not given Democrats anything to work with. Just look at how Republicans tried to force their skinny repeal through, and the Senate only barely rejected it. I don't remember if it was the skinny repeal or something else, but didn't Republicans try to pass something through Congress, and refused to let Democrats so much as see what they were voting on? If you withhold information on what your opponent is supposed to be voting on, you don't get to cry crocodile tears when Democrats reject your idea. That isn't bipartisanship; that's Republicans completely refusing to engage in a dialogue.

Yeah, trump owned the shutdown, which is why he wasn’t the one who took expensive vacations outside the country on taxpayer dime while normal government workers weren’t being paid.

Nice deflection.

Doesn't at all change that the shutdown was Trump's fault.

The berlin wall vs the walls Egypt uses, the walls iran uses, the list could go on. Even military establishes some manner of physical barrier no matter where they set up, because a wall ensures that the only people coming across the border are those who are allowed to do so. We have the stats from the better portions of the wall built during the bush era. And again, there has been clamor for a wall of some sort since as recently as obama’s first run. Also, the berlin wall divided Berlin from Berlin, the border wall divides the United States from Central and South America. There is a blatant difference between the two.

The Berlin wall is nothing like this wall. The two are completely different things, built for completely different reasons. To compare them, trump would have to be building a wall dividing the United States east from west coast, or something similar. America isn’t being cut in half by a wall, America is getting some insulation from drug cartels, and other border related crime, That will hopefully help reduce the strain upon the border agents.

You realize the Berlin wall was just part of the Iron Curtain, which did divide multiple countries, right? And I have already seen enough people genuinely suggesting the wall should divide the west coast from the rest of the country. This isn't about "insulation" from drug cartels and other border related crime, and there is no consideration towards the strain upon border agents. Even using the data Winter cited, each agent averaged six apprehensions a month. Take that a step further, that means each agent would average about one apprehension every five days.

I would agree that there's strange if it was something like each agent averaged six apprehensions a day. But only one in every fifth day? I'm not really convinced that's much of a strain.

They will have much more difficulty with a barrier blocking them. And they will be caught more often with an object delaying them that is a fact.

When the average agent apparently needs five days to catch a single immigrant, I suppose the only way to go from there is up. Though I really have to wonder how long the wall would delay them for.

Hold what against me? Fact is, we do not need to send 10 billion to central/south America if they are sending their citizens to America anyways. The 7 billion that he pulled with his executive order is in court now, and the verdict will either be yes or no, ending that question regardless. The pentagon broke no laws doing what it did, and agreement or not, they were well within the books for everything they did, properly budgeting and booking it all, so blocking it was something they had no need to do. The money I listed was all on the books, and all explained to you more than well enough. What laws were broken? None at all. The money that is/was supposed to go to the walls is/was all above the table and on the books proper. The money going to foreign aid being spent on the states instead is not something that other countries can complain about considering the money is our own to spend in the first place. It is not immoral to establish a barrier between two countries. Other countries to the south of us have citizens attempting to come across the borders illegally all the time. We don’t have Americans and canadians trying to break across to live in central/south America. It’s the other way around.

That is pretty much what an executive order allows him to do. So yeah, it’s being fought in court right now, but past presidents have done this, it’s not something that’s wholly unprecedented. Presidents reallocating funds via executive order is pretty common really.

You said that the money was a moot point, so I figured you were going to let it go, but I see you haven't.

The $10 billion was sent to Central and South America to stop them from sending their citizens to America. It was to encourage development so that people would be more inclined to remain, and frankly I consider that a much better solution than gutting our own system because that will somehow remove incentives for immigrants. You don't light your house on fire because you're afraid that people might break in, unless you're really that stupid. That many is spent well, and I'm reminded of the meme that addresses while climate deniers are idiots: "What if we build a better world for nothing?"

"We don't need to spend more to our neighbors if they're sending citizens to America anyways." Okay, but you are literally doing nothing wrong by improving the economy. I have my issues on whether it could constitute lobbying, but that would be looking for something wrong, and would go beyond the scope of this discussion. The point is, we don't need to send that money, but it's good to be spending it anyway, and the only reason to deny that money is because Trump wants to maintain a spiteful relationship with those countries rather than making any effort to help them.

I think we both know that once the verdict is given regarding the 7 billion, you and I will both continue to debate it, so that question will not be over. I firmly expect him to lose that fight, and if he does, you will cite it as another example of how Trump has been obstructed. The fact that it is being discussed in court makes it rather presumptuous to claim that no laws were broken at all.

Again, I explained to you already why the Pentagon's decision was recklessly stupid. Can we at least agree that while it was not illegal, it was so dumb that it's only going to cause more problems for them?

Outside of accepting people whose situations are so bad that they have nowhere else they can go without likely being hunted down and prosecuted for existing, we don’t have to accept people. Yeah, it’s a pretty narrow range. And yeah, I did step back the comment, because you pointed out that asylum is still a thing that we agreed to. That’s called fixing my comment. If I say one thing, and somebody reminds me that there is an exception to the rule, then yeah, applying that caveat to future comments is perfectly natural. Did you expect me to jus stubbornly push ahead with said argument without fixing the one hole in the comment? There’s a reason I tend to avoid as many blanket statements as possible, because caveats like that often exist. I made a blanket statement, and you pointed out a thing it doesn’t cover. I corrected that miss.
No, it would be “Aside from X reason, we don’t have to do Y” there is exactly one exception, and the only reason the numbers are even as high as they are, is because of expansions in the asylum policy by Obama, which helped cause the rise of asylum claims.

Irrefutably wrong? As far as the blanked statement? Definitely. But that’s why I stopped using it, because it was proven wrong. That said, Who but asylum seekers do we have to accept by law? Nobody. The expansions increased the number of “credible fears” thanks to the addition of gang violence and domestic violence.

Under U.S. law, refugees and asylum seekers are defined as separate categories, so that means there are at least two exceptions. So I think "Aside from one obligation to do X, and a second reason to do X, we never have have to do X." There are separate protocols for both categories, and we are obligated to accept both categories.

Before you move the goalposts again, I just want to warn you that putting two caveats into your argument would just be even more pathetic. So yes, I do expect you to just push ahead with your argument without fixing only one of the holes in the comment.

Is unfiltered islam compatible with western values? Serious question time here. Is the current political frame of Venezuela compatible with American values? Are Chinese family values (say… killing your daughters because you want more sons) currently in line with American values? Is killing white people on a whim in line with American values? Is slavery in line with American values? Is throwing gay people from the rooftops an American value? Is screwing little boys and raping women ~~outside of hollywood~~ a part of Americas values? The list goes on and on. Those are the kinds of foreign elements and unsavory things that I’m talking about when I say what I did. Things that America has managed to grow past, never adopted in the first place, Or that the vast majority of Americans generally frown upon. Things that would only make America worse as a country. Do you agree with those things being not good for America?

Slavery actually was in line with American values, it just isn't the value for the majority of the populace any longer. Certainly the GOP isn't above employing undocumented immigrants for labor. To answer your question, it's at least in line with Republican values. And raping women does seem to be a part of our president's values. I agree that those things are not good for America, and that is why I despise the Republican party. But, see, the thing about all those people I'm discussing? They're just part of America, but not enough for me to want nothing to do with them. It's why I'm against Calexit, which falsely claims that California and America's values are so antithetical that we might as well be a different country. It's simply not true, and it attempts to the actions of a cherrypicked sample to make the case for secession.

That is my issue with the wall. To Trump, it is entirely about framing Mexico and other countries as the problem. Not individuals who hold values that are incompatible with America. As long as they're Mexican, that's all that Trump cares about. We have seen this with how he banned refugees from certain countries, and while I understood that terrorist populations did originate from those countries, ultimately it was illegal to ban people because of the country they're from. And as we've seen time and again, Trump will sometimes either do things in a technically legal way that's still scummy, or he actually will violate international law.

You didn't like me going after character, so here is a statement that focuses exclusively on legislation: A wall would be more consistent with policies that have directly violated international law.

When I say they have nothing to do with the borders, I mean it has nothing to do with illegal immigration. The discussion topic that I am mainly talking about is not the people who are going through the proper channels, we’ve been over that. The people in the backlog are filing the correct paperwork, waiting properly, and actually obeying the laws. So let me reiterate both of our points:
“I’ve told you, people who come here legally are generally fine by me. If they’re following the legal process, then why would I be against them? They may or may not be accepted, that'a another discussion entirely, but they at least have enough respect for this country to come in through the front door proper. There’s definitely issues I have with the immigration system, but the people who come over legally are not going to be affected by the wall, and we can all already agree that immigration reform is a thing that needs to happen. ”
”Yes, I got that. I told you I understood that. You don’t need to worry about repeating that point to me.”
Are they filing properly for asylum? Yeah. Did we both already agree that the immigration system needs reworking? Yes. So do you or I have a problem with them? No. We’ve agreed on all that multiple times. That is why the backlog has nothing to do with the discussion. We have both already agreed on all the things related to that particular topic.

At that specific point in the conversation, the main discussion topic was that the United States does need to ensure that people are going through the proper channels. That was central to that aspect of the argument, so the backlog was perfectly relevant to what you were discussing.

We have already agreed on most of the things. What I'm frustrated with is that you claim it's relevant to a topic, and I would appreciate if you would worked with me on this instead of dismissing it outright, because it is in fact relevant to your argument. We have agreed on all the points you laid out. If you can agree that we reached those agreements because the backlog was relevant to the argument you were making, and that discussing the backlog brought us to those agreements, then I'll be satisfied with that.

Also, as I discussed with Winter, CBP is forcing immigrants towards them between ports to demonize them as illegal. So yes, even the people who do come over legally are going to be affected by the wall. That is based on the facts that we have at hand, so to get back to the point I was trying to make when I mentioned the backlog: The Trump administration is the bigger problem here, because it does not treat immigrants with any distinction between legal and illegal. That is why I mentioned the backlogs, because even when immigrants do follow every legal step possible, this administration screws them over.

Before you dismiss my argument, let me remind that this thread was specifically started because Trump shut down the government because Trump could not get money for Trump's wall. How the Trump administration has approached immigration is the entire premise of this thread, so discussing both the administration has dealt with illegal and legal immigration are equally relevant in this case.

Yes, you refuted that claim, so I clarified it appropriately, removing the flawed aspect. That is how an argument works. As I really did forget about the asylum agreements i agreed that i messed that up. You refuted the blanket claim, that was my mistake. I gave you that 100%. I then subtracted that from my point because it was a mistake. It’s already been given to you, the new point is what it now looks like when corrected. Am i incorrect when i say "Apart from asylum we don't have to accept anybody"? That's why i rarely use blanket statements, because there's often a gap in "absolute" arguments. so i instead corrected it.

You didn't clarify anything. That is flat-out moving the goalposts, and because you used an absolute argument, you were shown the exception to that, and when you tried to keep asking the question, I showed another exception, given how asylum and refugees are considered separate. So to answer your question, yes, you are absolutely incorrect. Thanks for playing.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/research/2018/10/usa-treatment-of-asylum-seekers-southern-border/

"The Trump administration has leveraged vague claims of “capacity” constraints, as an escape hatch to violate its legal obligations to receive and process asylum-seekers’ requests for protection."

Strange, it sounds like your "There's only so much room in America" argument was just parroting a dog whistle that the Trump administration uses to violate the law. Funny, that!

Phantom Roxas · April 13, 2019

For example, the famous sanctuary city San Francisco is currently well over what anybody would consider a reasonable limit https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/29308-sanctuary-city-by-the-bay-is-knee-deep-in-filth illegal immigration has an infinite range, and the only way to curb it is to never let it expand beyond control as we clearly are doing.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/politics/immigrant-detainees-sanctuary-cities/index.html

So I take it you would be against Trump's personal decision to release detained immigrants into sanctuary cities, just so he could score political points against Democrats? Or will you once again try to frame Trump as some poor, innocent victim of obstruction, whose hand was forced by the mean old Democrats?

vla1ne · April 14, 2019

[spoiler=I sometimes hate my computer]

Starting with the latest one, I’m against overcrowding cities with illegal immigrants, but the fact is, over the past two years, all attempts by trump to reduce incentives for illegals and asylum seekers to come here have been blocked. You can only tell him to let them in for so long, before he decides to have you accept them in full. We have heard a rather large number of people running said sanctuary cities bragging about how said illegal immigrants are hardworking, peaceful people, and we’ve seen them declare over and over that they welcome them to their states with open arms, going so far as to ignore federal law, and even warn known criminals of ICE raids beforehand. As far as acting on it, I’m against it in general, but as far as being used to show how his opponents who claimed to love illegals and asylum seekers don’t even want them, I’m all for using it. By giving his opponents the very thing they claimed to want for years, he’s show just how little they truly want it. And in that light, their resistance to his removal of incentives, their resistance to his restrictions on immigration, their resistance to his building a wall, and the part they played in removing resources for ICE and Border patrol to do their jobs, makes very little sense. In short, if he does it, it will not end well for those cities, but those sanctuary cities have been demanding it for years now, thinking he would never do it. So it’s not something I feel bad for them over.

He said exactly the things she demanded in her tweet. She still refused. That sound to me like it’s her own fault, not his. She demanded those things, he gave them to her practically verbatim.

He was rejected multiple times individually, but each time he came back with more concessions, and a lower asking price. It went from 20 billion and nothing for them, to 5 billion and a full package deal for them to get everything they had wanted, with minimal concessions on their end. Tell me how that’s a bad deal?

A gentleman’s agreement is in no way a law. Preventing something that dealt no harm to them and in fact would have helped alleviate the strain of congress over budget wars, all because of a “gentleman’s agreement” is a true exercise in redundant futility. In the face of a divided government, the pentagon decided to try helping in its own way, by giving a billion it managed to pull together for the wall funding to reduce the problem.

[spoiler=’Need I remind you again of the number of congress members who had already sworn to never work with trump, well before (and well after) he actually entered the white house? Aka, remind you that democrats had zero intention of reaching the middle with him at any given point? I probably do.’]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/09/senate-democratic-leader-schumer-vows-fight-trump-nominee-everything-have/769930002/ here we see them vowing to deny Kavanagh at all costs. They all planned to deny his nomination well before any of those joke allegations came round. This is them making a blatant declaration of opposition.

https://www.gop.com/100-days-of-obstruction-dems-refusing-to-work-with-president-trump-on-making-america-great-again/ and if you look here, this is a nice little list of how most democrats in power used every ounce of their power to fight against any and everything that trump put forth, for any and every possible reason. They’ve been trying to be real bipartisan right? You said they were trying to be bipartisan from the start right? This is the start. Where exactly were they being bipartisan in those vows to delay and obstruct with all their power? Trump didn’t do the same to them, and in fact worked with the more reasonable of them, as best he could to at least get a prison reform bill past.

In fact, even before the before: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-migrants-day-protests-la/california-marchers-protest-against-trump-as-democrats-vow-policy-fight-idUSKBN1480AV?utm_source=applenews you get to see California voters and legislators dedicating their efforts to blocking trump’s every move. Real bipartisanship right there.

But Wait! There’s more! https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/democrats-trump-strategy-234206 can you guess what this is before clicking it? If you guessed another article pointing out how democrats vowed to fight any and everything trump before the man could evn get fully rolling, you guessed right. As we both know, they even got the 9th circuit to flaunt a precedent ruling just to swing against his travel ban after this article. (Luckily the SCOTUS didn’t do the same, so that is now a nonissue)

Helping trump on the wall is political suicide for most democrats, because the top dems are deadset against him, in their own words. We saw what happened to Bernie when he stepped in front of the top dems. That’s also they are like towards nearly anything that would leave a legacy directly related to trump. Supreme court nomination? False allegation time to delay and obstruct! Border security attempts? Create obstruction by dropping their bed count! Peace meetings with North Korea for the first time in decades? Let’s schedule as much negative press investigations as possible while he’s negotiating with foreign diplomats. Lose to him because the election is about more than just the popular vote, and you sheet on an actually popular candidate that could have beat him? This must be the work of an enemy stand country! He comes out nearly unscathed from one of the most intensive investigations in presidential history? Better focus on those taxes again! Can’t win an election the fair way? Demand that he be removed from the ballot until he gives you pointless information about his taxes. People calling for his death and attacking people in the streets for wearing MAGA hats? That’s just fighting back against oppression. He calls out a Representative who downplays 911? He must be a racist who hates America! The list goes on and on. Seriously,

Most Democrats have never shown any intention of working with him from day one, and it shows. He has not had the same problem, as can be seen from him actually managing to work with some of the more willing members of the democratic party to pass things like prison reform (which many democrats didn’t even see fit to applaud when mentioned the bipartisan efforts).

Indeed he owned the shutdown, and he did what he could to end it. It’s not deflection to remind you that he took responsibility when other parties were taking vacations out the country on taxpayer dime. He did the right thing when he ended the fight, and he was the only one who did the responsible thing in order to end it (aka, staying at work, still getting as much work done as he could, and always there, willing to work out solutions that could benefit both parties). his opponents though? One of the head figures was planning on taking a 7 day trip out of the country in the middle of the shutdown while innocent people weren't being paid. All on taxpayer money, of course.

The wall is literally a barrier that is meant to slow, if not completely deter people who wish to come here illegally. It allows fewer people to do more work, and it allows more people to do even more work. That’s what a wall allows for, multiple other countries have done this, and they all tend to see positive results. As for the berlin wall, it divided a single area of a country from another. Not one country from another. That country had been split up, but it was still single country overall. It was taken over by 4 different powers, and one of said powers decided to go dictator mode on their area of influence, which is why the wall was broken down, because things on the other side were so bad that the other three ruled districts had to step in and help. Mexico and America are not the same country at all. The berlin wall was a wall built to keep people from escaping the country that built it as well. That is not the case for America, it is to keep people who should not be entering the country from entering the country illegally. you couldn't leave the iron curtain, the border wall has gates in it that are clearly meant for leaving and entering. There are multiple roads leading to gates that people can legally enter through, if they don’t want to enter from those gates, then they can stay out. We are already stretched handling drugs, trafficking, and illegal immigration, among other manner of crimes. A wall for us, has an actual purpose aside from shielding communism, or (as the commies claimed) blocking out capitalism.

People suggest the wall should divide the east from the west because California seems to believe they can let illegal immigrants get free benefits, and then be reimbursed by the federal government, all the while flaunting federal laws to do so. When there’s one place that decides it’s for the best to act as a sanctuary for illegals, and they then begin letting those illegals leak into other states that want no part in it, there is a problem. The proposal to build a wall is a representation of that. The real proposal though, is that the federal government stops funding them so long as they flaunt federal law. To me, that sounds like a perfect reaction. I believe the SCOTUS is looking it over though, so that’ll be a fun one.

In some cases, long enough, in others, not long enough, and in others, it may be all that is needed to prevent entry. But it is unquestionably better than nothing at all.

Do we just toss out billions every time they ask then? Instead of removing actual policies that designate healthcare for the people who shouldn’t be here (like the ones in California)? Instead of spending that same money to ensure that the people who come to America illegally can’t get in? How exactly are you guaranteeing that they don’t send said immigrants? America is leagues above their own country, that’s a fact, and people already know that. So what exactly is keeping them there? Are they gonna build a wall? Are they just gonna ask nicely? Are they going to surpass America in quality of life? Are they going to invest in businesses and infrastructure that surpasses us in such short time? Will they be providing free benefits to their citizens the way American sanctuary cities do? What does that money guarantee outside of us giving them something for nothing? How is it any better than a situation, where the hostage is our own border? Just sending them money? That does not work. It is not burning down the country to spend that same money on improving our own countries defenses. It is proper investment, that at least sends money back into the economy as it pays the workers, all the while reducing the strain on border patrol fighting cartels. We benefit more from using that money on ourselves. Southern America deserves to be a good country as well, but just throwing money at the problem has been tried in numerous situations, and it rarely, if ever works. What makes this one so different?

You serious with that “Spiteful relationship” comment? Listen to me seriously, I had people who came to me for money for YEARS, and I used to actually give it to them. Since I was younger, I’ve had that same idea “if I can pay for this or that for them, they’ll be better off” trying to avoid what you would call a "spiteful relationship" You know where that gets you? Broke. Struggling just like the people you paid, who more often than not, do nothing to get themselves off the ground. When you could easily have been establishing something proper for yourself. It’s the same reason most lottery winners don’t stay rich. Free money does not inspire, nor does it innovate. Only effort and action do. Paying them in the hopes that they get their sheet together is just throwing money out the window. It does not matter if they get “spiteful” at us for not giving them our money. We are not their parents, nor are we their piggy bank. If they get mad at us for it, who cares? Other forms of assistance would be lovely to grant them, helping them when they put in effort, by contracting out American labor, giving favorable trade deals, student study programs to elevate their brightest young to a higher level, agricultural aid to help them use their land more effectively, ect, that is the kind of aid that holds true value from one country to another. Free money? Never. It does nothing for them. If it did, countries like Africa would have far fewer problems after all the money that's been thrown at them.

If the SCOTUS rules in favor, then the story ends there. If they don’t, then the story ends there.

We can agree to disagree.

Nah, I can give that one up. Two caveats is one caveat too far. Not worth it at this point. That being said, some interesting facts about those “asylum seekers” and “Refugees” https://cis.org/Arthur/Trump-Baits-Press-Asylum-NoShows it seems there’s a rather large percentage of no shows among them. This does no favors at all for the actual number of credible claims. Of particular interest though? This beautiful little passage:

“And even the aforementioned appearance rate to apply for asylum is a bit misleading. As anyone who is a regular reader of my column knows, I was an immigration judge in a detained immigration court. By the time I left that position (in January 2015), a significant number of the asylum cases that I heard were filed by aliens who had passed credible fear. Just to bottom-line this point: All of those applicants showed up for court, because they had to — they were detained, and a York County (Pennsylvania) correctional officer would bring them to court from a pod down the hall. They appeared, but there's no guarantee that they would have wanted to otherwise.

Actually, the fact that they were detained is indicative of the fact that most or all of them were flight risks, that is, respondents who were unlikely to appear for future proceedings. Nonetheless, in the eyes of the New York Timesfact-checker, they were individuals who attended their court hearings (albeit by coercion).

A March 2018 report from the Center for Migration Studies, estimates that there were an average of 40,520 aliens in immigration detention on a daily basis in FY 2018. Statistics from the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Department of Justice (DOJ) agency with jurisdiction over the immigration courts and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), reveal that there were 786,303 cases pending before the agency at the end of FY 2018.

”

But is it now? That’s my question. Anybody employing illegals should be penalized. End of story. If somebody knowingly puts illegals on the payroll, especially if they publicly disavow them, they deserve the same punishment as those who do it and advocate it vocally. Unless you got a particular example, I’m calling bullshit on you for the rape claim. And before you try to use them, Stormy Daniels is a proven liar, and the locker room talk explicitly included “and they let you” Which is implying consent, not rape. So please point out what you have as an example, if you want to call the president a rapist. I’m all for calexit if they are going to flaunt federal laws as often as they are currently. Leave, and take the sinking state with them.

Trump has said, multiple times that Mexico has some wonderful people. He has already stated that he would be all for any Mexicans/South/Central Americans who wish to come in through the natural process. He has been an advocate of the belief that Mexico and the rest of the southern border countries deserve to be great as well. He has advocated for immigration reform as well. These are all positions that trump has very vocally, from the very start, been advocating. The wall is an actual physical prevention of illegal immigration and criminals. It does not deter law abiding immigrants who come from the gate. Walls are used all over the world, they are not some pointless decoration, their entire purpose is to delay, and deter. Slowing the flow if things go south at any given moment/area. That’s

What law would be violated by placing a barrier along a border? Is Israel violating that law? Is china violating that law? Is Egypt? Is Macedonia? Multiple countries have walls along some portion to prevent their neighbors from causing them too many problems. Even The UK has walls (more like massive fences, but still) to restrain the flow in some areas.

The backlog was directly related to an increase in traffic at the border, and there have been quite a few cuts to the number of judges back then. Trump has actually hired more immigration judges to deal with the problem, and it seems to be doing the trick well enough.

Your comment right after claiming that I’m wrong when I say we only have so much room, decides to acknowledge my citation that the places that actually want these people are already going to sheet. Congrats, you either destroyed your own argument well before even making it, or you admitted that I’m right, right after claiming I’m wrong. If there Is more room, then the states that claim to want them, AKA sanctuary cities that flaunt the laws to keep them can have them all, or they just don’t get in. it’s a simple solution.

Ryusei the Morning Star · April 14, 2019

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/11/politics/immigrant-detainees-sanctuary-cities/index.html

So I take it you would be against Trump's personal decision to release detained immigrants into sanctuary cities, just so he could score political points against Democrats? Or will you once again try to frame Trump as some poor, innocent victim of obstruction, whose hand was forced by the mean old Democrats?

But I thought love trumps hate. Here's your chance to show it. Take a few illegals into your home roxas

Nathanael D. Striker · April 15, 2019

But I thought love trumps hate. Here's your chance to show it. Take a few illegals into your home roxas

Answer the question, Winter. You tend to sidestep questions, and it annoys me.

And since I haven't answered vla1ne's question from a while back yet, seems reasonable to me. Simply hiring more people to deal with 50 doesn't do much when more can come. My issue is if it is worth the upfront cost and future investment, both political and monetary, especially since the latter has been a moving target iirc.

vla1ne · April 15, 2019

And since I haven't answered vla1ne's question from a while back yet, seems reasonable to me. Simply hiring more people to deal with 50 doesn't do much when more can come. My issue is if it is worth the upfront cost and future investment, both political and monetary, especially since the latter has been a moving target iirc.

As far as political goes, i have to admit, if democrats caved on it, many of their constituents would probably eat them alive. but that said, democrats themselves created the political corner they're currently in as far as that goes. as far as monetary, the cost of each illegal immigrant over a lifetime has been estimated to be on the rise, as has illegal immigration:

https://www.foxnews.com/us/each-illegal-immigrant-cost-us-82k-conservative-think-tank-claims

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/border-surge-highest-since-2011-each-illegal-immigrant-costs-70-000-7x-deportation-price

The estimated amount that the wall would have to increase apprehensions to pay for itself is around 5-10%. That's not including any drug cartels and human traffickers that may also be prevented, if the wall can do that much, then it would be able to pay for the current projected costs, and if the costs were spread out over 3-4 years, the wall would effectively be the equivalent of a savings account that accrues interest for moderate attention. then, you could consider repairs that hire all american citizens as decent a job creator (with taxes that go back into the system) that also doubles as an additional border patrol lite, so long as the crews hired are moderately drilled on proper the procedures should they encounter illegals, cartels, caravans, or traffickers. Money is a question that's raised a lot, but the benefits and costs can be balanced out with relative ease. Whether the people in charge decide to actually try balancing the costs is one thing, but it can be done.

Ryusei the Morning Star · April 16, 2019

Answer the question, Winter. You tend to sidestep questions, and it annoys me.

And since I haven't answered vla1ne's question from a while back yet, seems reasonable to me. Simply hiring more people to deal with 50 doesn't do much when more can come. My issue is if it is worth the upfront cost and future investment, both political and monetary, especially since the latter has been a moving target iirc.

Why would I be against it. The left loves the illegals. They can have them so the rest of us don't have to deal with them

cr47t · April 16, 2019

Why would I be against it. The left loves the illegals. They can have them so the rest of us don't have to deal with them

Ayfkm

enough with "the left love this the left is that" bullshit. i called you out on it in the russia/WH thread and i'll do it here. you'd be hollering at the top of you're lungs if roxas said such a thing about the right and you know it and if roxas has done it you probably have so spare me this skullduggery.

as for the "they can have them" part - i'm assuming you're referring to the proposal to bus illegals to sanctuary cities? that whole policy is "i'm going to punish my political enemies by sending people i think are dangerous to their constitiuent's hometowns". when you break it down that's the logic behind it - or at least what stephen miller thought when he proposed it since he's the one credited for introducing it to the administration. it's meant to punish the many for the actions of the few. think about it, even trump supporters would be unhappy by this if they happen to live in a sanctuary city. there's so many angles of wrong to this policy but i dont have the time or patience to dive into them now, and most of them are obvious enough to be observed on their own.

vla1ne · April 17, 2019

As for the "they can have them" part - i'm assuming you're referring to the proposal to bus illegals to sanctuary cities? that whole policy is "i'm going to punish my political enemies by sending people i think are dangerous to their constituent's hometowns". when you break it down that's the logic behind it - or at least what stephen miller thought when he proposed it since he's the one credited for introducing it to the administration. it's meant to punish the many for the actions of the few. think about it, even trump supporters would be unhappy by this if they happen to live in a sanctuary city. there's so many angles of wrong to this policy but i don't have the time or patience to dive into them now, and most of them are obvious enough to be observed on their own.

While I agree with the statement that the notion will harm the regular citizens in sanctuary cities, I have to say that trumps actions could easily be pointed to the policies of sanctuary cities. The people who run sanctuary citizens have created the ideal situation for illegal immigrants, and those same people have helped reduce the days that illegals can be contained. The argument that the leaders are the only people responsible, ignores the people who voted for, and continued to vote for, those in power. Trump sending illegals to the states that claimed to want them, and flaunted federal law to keep them, is far better than sending them into the places that don't. Sanctuary states are called that for a reason. They literally implement programs, in direct defiance of federal law, in order to maintain the conditions that they use to shelter illegals. What state are you going to place the illegals that you have to keep in the country? The state that goes to those extents to keep them? Or the states that blatantly say "We don't want them"?

There are a lot of ways to attack trump's claim, But there are plenty of arguments in favor as well.

Ryusei the Morning Star · April 17, 2019

Ayfkm

enough with "the left love this the left is that" bullshit. i called you out on it in the russia/WH thread and i'll do it here. you'd be hollering at the top of you're lungs if roxas said such a thing about the right and you know it and if roxas has done it you probably have so spare me this skullduggery.

as for the "they can have them" part - i'm assuming you're referring to the proposal to bus illegals to sanctuary cities? that whole policy is "i'm going to punish my political enemies by sending people i think are dangerous to their constitiuent's hometowns". when you break it down that's the logic behind it - or at least what stephen miller thought when he proposed it since he's the one credited for introducing it to the administration. it's meant to punish the many for the actions of the few. think about it, even trump supporters would be unhappy by this if they happen to live in a sanctuary city. there's so many angles of wrong to this policy but i dont have the time or patience to dive into them now, and most of them are obvious enough to be observed on their own.

I'll decide what is enough and isn't actually. Thank you for your help. You calling me out, doesn't make me wrong craft. And no, Roxas regularly makes over generalizations. Two of his mainstays is calling the Persian and the Black guy white supremacists. I don't report him.

When all the 2020 candidates support some variation of amnesty and all but 1 democrat filibuster bills that would secure the border, its a matter of calling a spade a spade.

Trump supporters who live in Sanct Cities have their stupid local govs to blame.

cr47t · April 17, 2019

While I agree with the statement that the notion will harm the regular citizens in sanctuary cities, I have to say that trumps actions could easily be pointed to the policies of sanctuary cities. The people who run sanctuary citizens have created the ideal situation for illegal immigrants, and those same people have helped reduce the days that illegals can be contained. The argument that the leaders are the only people responsible, ignores the people who voted for, and continued to vote for, those in power. Trump sending illegals to the states that claimed to want them, and flaunted federal law to keep them, is far better than sending them into the places that don't. Sanctuary states are called that for a reason. They literally implement programs, in direct defiance of federal law, in order to maintain the conditions that they use to shelter illegals. What state are you going to place the illegals that you have to keep in the country? The state that goes to those extents to keep them? Or the states that blatantly say "We don't want them"?

There are a lot of ways to attack trump's claim, But there are plenty of arguments in favor as well.

I'm not sure about all the arguments in favor since I don't know all of them nor do I have the time or the patience to duscuss them all so I'll focus on the one(s) you put out.

you can point to the actions of sanctuary cities and say "this is bad for the states that are doing this and the people living in it" or "this is bad for the country as a whole" but is this really the best way possible to go about it? i'm sure if we got the best minds in the country together we could come up with a more practical and less divisive solution.

and when you reduce it to "these states/cities want the illegals and those states dont" you ignore the fact that states and even cities are made up with people of differing opinions. some vote in favor of the people who implement sanctuary laws, some vote against those people, some have an opinion but dont vote at all, and some dont have an opinion at all. simplistic reductions like this don't help the situation nor solve the problem. in many ways they are part of the problem.

vla1ne · April 17, 2019

you can point to the actions of sanctuary cities and say "this is bad for the states that are doing this and the people living in it" or "this is bad for the country as a whole" but is this really the best way possible to go about it? i'm sure if we got the best minds in the country together we could come up with a more practical and less divisive solution.

and when you reduce it to "these states/cities want the illegals and those states dont" you ignore the fact that states and even cities are made up with people of differing opinions. some vote in favor of the people who implement sanctuary laws, some vote against those people, some have an opinion but dont vote at all, and some dont have an opinion at all. simplistic reductions like this don't help the situation nor solve the problem. in many ways they are part of the problem.

The thing is, there has been ample protesting in favor of illegal immigrants in (particularly californias) sanctuary cities. People have been saying "This is bad for the country" for years. We often just get called racists who hate immigration, and kicked off whatever platforms said discussion has been held on. Seriously, twitter bans people for stating that sanctuary cities are a net negative on the country and the people that live in them. the argument gets attacked. The very state representatives who support sanctuary cities, also have been fighting turmp on his limitations to immigration. it's one of the reasons that trump stated what he did. He is effectively calling their bluff. sanctuary city supporters are much of the time, the same people who try to prevent trumps policies on illegal immigration, or attempted to reduce the holding capacity/time that border patrol is allotted.

The people in favor won, that means their voice is more populous in those states, in the states that don't. the people who don't want said laws won. If he is going to be forced to release them into the country anyways, then the states who have the loudes advocates are going to be the clear choice for where to send them. if the people who don't want them are in the states that have leaders who do, then they had best campaign for somebody willing to object the next time, as the rest of the states managed to do. It has to be reduced to such, because when he is forced to release them, those are the two choices present: A) release them into states where the majority has voted in favor of people who want to support illegals (aka sanctuary cities/states) B) Release them into states where the majority has voted against people who want to support illegals. given the choice, it's more often than not going to be the former, because the latter has demonstrated zero desire to take in illegals, and generally isn't the one advocating that we need to, or implementing programs to support them.

cr47t · April 17, 2019

The thing is, there has been ample protesting in favor of illegal immigrants in (particularly californias) sanctuary cities. People have been saying "This is bad for the country" for years. We often just get called racists who hate immigration, and kicked off whatever platforms said discussion has been held on. Seriously, twitter bans people for stating that sanctuary cities are a net negative on the country and the people that live in them. the argument gets attacked. The very state representatives who support sanctuary cities, also have been fighting turmp on his limitations to immigration. it's one of the reasons that trump stated what he did. He is effectively calling their bluff. sanctuary city supporters are much of the time, the same people who try to prevent trumps policies on illegal immigration, or attempted to reduce the holding capacity/time that border patrol is allotted.

The people in favor won, that means their voice is more populous in those states, in the states that don't. the people who don't want said laws won. If he is going to be forced to release them into the country anyways, then the states who have the loudes advocates are going to be the clear choice for where to send them. if the people who don't want them are in the states that have leaders who do, then they had best campaign for somebody willing to object the next time, as the rest of the states managed to do. It has to be reduced to such, because when he is forced to release them, those are the two choices present: A) release them into states where the majority has voted in favor of people who want to support illegals (aka sanctuary cities/states) B) Release them into states where the majority has voted against people who want to support illegals. given the choice, it's more often than not going to be the former, because the latter has demonstrated zero desire to take in illegals, and generally isn't the one advocating that we need to, or implementing programs to support them.

now that I have time to respond, let's get back into this.

personally, i have no problem with people speaking out against sanctuary policy, so if you're using the "the platforms have an agenda against us" line as an attack on me personally, i would like you to stop. furthermore i have seen no evidence of twitter discriminating against consevrative viewpoints, if you have an argument proporting evidence of this, please provide it instead of the standalone claim so we can debate it. as it is, we can't, because an un falsifiable argument cannot sustain itself in a field of political debate.

you say the state reps who support sanctuary policies have been fighting trump on immigration. but in your post thats all you wrote. have you considered why they have been fighting him? it's completely possible it's not just a push for open borders. maybe they disagree with the methods that are being used? or the ideological approach behind it? (not in terms of open borders vs border security but in terms of "identity of the contry at risk vs human dignity of the immigrants at risk" or something along those lines?)

your second-paragraph argument, which says "The states who majority support them can take them if they want them" is not the argument that the trump administration is using, which is "the left loves the illegals they can take them if they want them". yours is more nuanced, and theirs is a pigeonhole, and i don't understand what you're trying to do here. if you're trying to rationalize without siding with their explanation, that's understandable. if you're trying to speak for the WH, you're not doing a very good job at it.

Phantom Roxas · April 17, 2019

[spoiler=I sometimes hate my computer]

Starting with the latest one, I’m against overcrowding cities with illegal immigrants, but the fact is, over the past two years, all attempts by trump to reduce incentives for illegals and asylum seekers to come here have been blocked. You can only tell him to let them in for so long, before he decides to have you accept them in full. We have heard a rather large number of people running said sanctuary cities bragging about how said illegal immigrants are hardworking, peaceful people, and we’ve seen them declare over and over that they welcome them to their states with open arms, going so far as to ignore federal law, and even warn known criminals of ICE raids beforehand. As far as acting on it, I’m against it in general, but as far as being used to show how his opponents who claimed to love illegals and asylum seekers don’t even want them, I’m all for using it. By giving his opponents the very thing they claimed to want for years, he’s show just how little they truly want it. And in that light, their resistance to his removal of incentives, their resistance to his restrictions on immigration, their resistance to his building a wall, and the part they played in removing resources for ICE and Border patrol to do their jobs, makes very little sense. In short, if he does it, it will not end well for those cities, but those sanctuary cities have been demanding it for years now, thinking he would never do it. So it’s not something I feel bad for them over.

He said exactly the things she demanded in her tweet. She still refused. That sound to me like it’s her own fault, not his. She demanded those things, he gave them to her practically verbatim.

He was rejected multiple times individually, but each time he came back with more concessions, and a lower asking price. It went from 20 billion and nothing for them, to 5 billion and a full package deal for them to get everything they had wanted, with minimal concessions on their end. Tell me how that’s a bad deal?

A gentleman’s agreement is in no way a law. Preventing something that dealt no harm to them and in fact would have helped alleviate the strain of congress over budget wars, all because of a “gentleman’s agreement” is a true exercise in redundant futility. In the face of a divided government, the pentagon decided to try helping in its own way, by giving a billion it managed to pull together for the wall funding to reduce the problem.

[spoiler=’Need I remind you again of the number of congress members who had already sworn to never work with trump, well before (and well after) he actually entered the white house? Aka, remind you that democrats had zero intention of reaching the middle with him at any given point? I probably do.’]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/09/senate-democratic-leader-schumer-vows-fight-trump-nominee-everything-have/769930002/ here we see them vowing to deny Kavanagh at all costs. They all planned to deny his nomination well before any of those joke allegations came round. This is them making a blatant declaration of opposition.

https://www.gop.com/100-days-of-obstruction-dems-refusing-to-work-with-president-trump-on-making-america-great-again/ and if you look here, this is a nice little list of how most democrats in power used every ounce of their power to fight against any and everything that trump put forth, for any and every possible reason. They’ve been trying to be real bipartisan right? You said they were trying to be bipartisan from the start right? This is the start. Where exactly were they being bipartisan in those vows to delay and obstruct with all their power? Trump didn’t do the same to them, and in fact worked with the more reasonable of them, as best he could to at least get a prison reform bill past.

In fact, even before the before: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-migrants-day-protests-la/california-marchers-protest-against-trump-as-democrats-vow-policy-fight-idUSKBN1480AV?utm_source=applenews you get to see California voters and legislators dedicating their efforts to blocking trump’s every move. Real bipartisanship right there.

But Wait! There’s more! https://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/democrats-trump-strategy-234206 can you guess what this is before clicking it? If you guessed another article pointing out how democrats vowed to fight any and everything trump before the man could evn get fully rolling, you guessed right. As we both know, they even got the 9th circuit to flaunt a precedent ruling just to swing against his travel ban after this article. (Luckily the SCOTUS didn’t do the same, so that is now a nonissue)

Helping trump on the wall is political suicide for most democrats, because the top dems are deadset against him, in their own words. We saw what happened to Bernie when he stepped in front of the top dems. That’s also they are like towards nearly anything that would leave a legacy directly related to trump. Supreme court nomination? False allegation time to delay and obstruct! Border security attempts? Create obstruction by dropping their bed count! Peace meetings with North Korea for the first time in decades? Let’s schedule as much negative press investigations as possible while he’s negotiating with foreign diplomats. Lose to him because the election is about more than just the popular vote, and you sheet on an actually popular candidate that could have beat him? This must be the work of an enemy stand country! He comes out nearly unscathed from one of the most intensive investigations in presidential history? Better focus on those taxes again! Can’t win an election the fair way? Demand that he be removed from the ballot until he gives you pointless information about his taxes. People calling for his death and attacking people in the streets for wearing MAGA hats? That’s just fighting back against oppression. He calls out a Representative who downplays 911? He must be a racist who hates America! The list goes on and on. Seriously,