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

[vla1ne]

https://newrepublic.com/article/152644/trump-undoing-much-obamas-legacy

 

Trump runs solely on undoing Obama's work. He and the GOP absolutely despised Obama, so if you want to keep beating the drum that Democrats are running on the platform of "We hate Trump", then it's a perfect counter to state that Trump's platform is "I hate Obama." You want them to discuss his ideas of banning transgender people from the military, repealing all of Obamacare, and actively threatens environmental protection policies? He isn't approaching anything with a modicum respect. You're demanding that Democrats show Trump far more respect than Trump shows with his discriminatory policies. He's reversing policies that protect minorities from discrimination. Oh, and they happen to include policies enacted under Obama. The only way to interpret that reversal is that Trump is advocating for discrimination.

 

You claimed before that character is irrelevant to the argument, except it has everything to do with the argument. Trump's policies come from who he is as a person. You may not like that I'm criticizing Trump's character, but I can assure that I am truly not all that bothered by condemning his actions and the prejudices that inspired them.

 

Yeah, a lot of people didn't like obama's policies, and i don't object with the claim he's attacking obama's executive orders, within reason of course. The statement that "Dems hate trump and will go against anything he does solely because he's trump" still stands even if the reverse is true. he didn't ban them all, he placed restrictions upon applying for the military if they were undergoing transition, mainly because one of the best ways to get people killed is to have soldiers who are not up to par on the field, such as somebody who is undergoing, or has undergone a delicate surgery that may well effect them extremely negatively at some point in the not too distant future. we've been over this, trans people suffer from quite  few symptoms of depression, and people with depression are generally not alowed into the military, as it's a net negative for the other troops. obamacare had to be repealed in full, it needs a complete rework before being implemented. I grant the much of that is due to the way it was butchered on the house floor before implementation, but fact is, it was a smart decision to pull the whole thing back for a future overhaul rather than have it continue damaging the budget and the taxpayers further. There are people who were hurt on all sides of that particular bill. never once agreed with his environmental policies. don't recall endorsing them either but that's a whole other discussion for a new topic. neither are democrats, unless "impeach the JABRONI" "Trump is a russian spy" supporters being attacked out in the streets, the sheer amount of "This is the beginning of the end for trump", the absolute obstruction of any and everything trump, ect, count as respect?

 

Your article cites terrible rulings from the obama era as evidence. No seriously. It claims that texas' voting laws are discriminatory, while not acknowledging that minorities could overcome said laws just by filing the proper paperwork and getting proper ID. Obama opposed people getting ID to vote, in a border state that has illegal immigration problems. That's not discrimination, it's an attempt to curb illegal voting, which is already a problem in certain border states with more lax rules. Next it cites the higher rate of school discipline for minority students. Little known fact being that little kids in minority schools are often little shits. I can tell you that because not only was i one of them, but i have nieces and nephews who are a part of that stupidity, we have the stats proving it, we see the conditions of the schools, and we see the level of the teachers. how about upping the teachers motivation, how about trying to involve the parents, how about properly ensuring that the discipline is effective, instead of disproportionate. The problem should not be that it hits too many minorities, the problem should be that it clearly doesn't do all that much. framing it in race is an auto loss for the article. Restricting punishment because it affects one group higher than the other, even though the rules are indeed fair already is not solving the problem, it's enabling it. Removing said restrictions is just common sense. As for programs that have "disparate impact" they completely ignore affirmative action programs, and only seem to talk about the things holding back (near) grown ass adults who ought to know better. Then it uses the argument that the trump administration is being unfair when they support the plight of asians who are being actually, literally, in the very practice of the rules and qualifications discriminated against by school policies, and not just victims of "disparate impact" the way they claim other minorities are. Can you guess why using that argument makes them (CNN) hypocrites? then we go back to voter laws: Ohio officials said the law would help keep voter rolls up to date. Once a person fails to vote for two years, the state sends a postcard asking for verification that the voter is still at the same address. People who do not return the pre-paid card and then fail to vote for four more years are removed from the rolls.

There is absolutely nothing unfair about this law, yet they claim it's somehow racist. no, if you don't ote for 2 years, and then don't vote for 4 more years you get booted from the rolls. that's 5-6 years. if you haven't voted in 5-6 years that what in the actual hell are you complaining about when you get kicked from the rolls? this is the level of argument they're attempting to use against the trump administration? Your article is weak at best. Trash at worst.

 

Like i said, i agree with some of it, disagree with other aspects. I support trump, but i criticize points that deserve such, like his environmental positions, his stance on israel being "sacred", his appointment of a religious education advocate to the head educational position, ect. His character is never what you should be attacking, his legislation is. Don't do the same things you accuse winter of doing for arguably similar reasons.

[Phantom Roxas]

His character is never what you should be attacking, his legislation is. Don't do the same things you accuse winter of doing for arguably similar reasons.

 

Trump's legislation comes from a place of malice. Treating his legislation as though it were autonomous and therefore criticizing that legislation should not reflect on his character makes absolutely no sense.

 

You have consistently implied that i attack character over argument, you have consistently implied that i was lying, disingenuous, or some other manner of dishonest. you have attempted to make it seem as if i were underhanded, or had some manner of temper that you have yet to prove, and have done so across the forum. your argument of ad hominem works against winter, een i call him on it, but there is ample evidence that i not only support civil discussion, but that i actiively work to prevent ad hominems from becoming the main form of argument, that i attack arguments primarily, and that every argument i ever levied towards character has been backed by actual evidence, and related to the discussion at hand. For examples, I have shown that the character of the democrats backs my claims against your arguments of them being fair, with my prior posts on them being all too eager to disparage trump, ignoring cancer treatment because trump said it, disregarding deals that they themselves said the wanted, and all manner of other points that i could pull up. i only bring in character when it backs my actual argument. for example, you conflate my arguments with winters, when they are arguably on two completely different levels no offense winter, but  they're undoubtedly different styles of argument. so when i bring up how you use this same tactic against winter, ( i could quote any of the three currently active threads as proof) i actually have something backing my point. my arguments are not the same, and i am rarely unfair to anybody i discuss a topic with. Your attempts to insinuate differently are provably false.

I want to bring in this quote where you're justifying how you bring in character when it backs up your argument. Likewise, the character of Trump backs my claims against his legislation. You can claim that I'm doing the same things I accuse Winter of doing, but I'm only doing what you do when you go after Democrats.

 

I don't see why it's okay when you do it, but you disagree when I do the same thing. You are condemning criticism of Trump when it is made in the same manner that you criticize Democrats.

[vla1ne]

you are alleging this, but it is an attack on character, not on the legislation. "he's a bad person" is not an argument. nor is "His legislation comes from malice" actually talk about the legislation. nt about the person. the legislation is what needs to be brought down if you disagree with it, the person introducing it, malice or no, is irrelevant.

 

"i actiively work to prevent ad hominems from becoming the main form of argument, that i attack arguments primarily, and that every argument i ever levied towards character has been backed by actual evidence, and related to the discussion at hand." seeing the point yet? When i talk about legislation, and use character to back my arguments, i cite actual character points relating to the discussion. I have also done my best to ensure that the character of the people in question is directly related, drawing their own words and action into my argument relating to character. Why do you think i granted your argument that republicans attacked obama because he was obama? Because it backs the argument when discussing mindless obstruction, and they practically said as much when obstructing him. Character relating to actual legislation, is not a relevant point in general. you can actually hate groups of people and still have actual rational arguments for restricting them. You have to destroy the arguments, not the character. From where i'm sitting, you have done the opposite, destroyed the character, but not the argument itself. sometimes not even discussing the relevant legislation. That is why i ask you not to do so.

 

Because i back my points with reasons, especially when i include character. I pointed out the flaws I saw in your character arguments, and explained why they do not apply, I have also granted some of them, because they counted as relevant. In my points, again, my mentions of character so far have only been applied in the exact places where democrats themselves admitted as much. Namely them directly claiming they'd obstruct his every action at every step of the way (and actually doing so). Looking at one point i made relating to such was: "look at the state of the union. they pretty much built their platform on "We hate trump"." it was their own direct actions and statements that i use to back my points, and it was a directly related point to their actions, as they blatantly stated it to be their motivations. For another example, were you to use his religious stances on abortion in an argument on his abortion objections, i would have no problem. He's blatantly stated as much, and the two topics are directly connected. You have called his policies racist, and cited sources that i have explicitly explained the flaws in. For example, the CNN link. His stances on minorities are irrelevant to the legislation, as the reasons behind them are independent of stances. Texas voter ID is a problem of actual election security, as it is a border state with actual illegal immigration issues, as seen in cali. His personal stances are irrelevant in the face of that fact. His character, as i explained, is irrelevant in the context of the actions.

[Phantom Roxas]

Trump discriminates against minorities, and is using the legislation to harm those minorities. Is that better? Because it is discussing the legislation, and refers to how the legislation itself is specifically designed. The Muslim ban is officially called "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States". It is purposefully designed to cast a broad stroke on all Muslims by painting them as terrorists. And yes, the person who introduced it is entirely relevant, because if Trump is responsible for these actions, then it should raise the question of whether he is fit to serve as President.

 

His stances on minorities are as relevant to the legislation as you believe Democrats building their platform on "We hate Trump" is relevant to why they oppose Trump. Because this is getting far more broad than this thread was designed for, I'll get back on topic and state that this wall is not designed with the primary intent of mitigating illegal immigration. It is designed with the intention of restricting the flow of Mexican citizens into America. You may think that there are legitimate reasons to fight back against illegal immigrants, but those are not the reasons that motivate Trump to have his wall. He is solely concerned with the color of their skin.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-border-wall-was-never-just-about-security-it-ncna952011

 

Trump's own direct actions and statement back my points, his racial biases are directly related to his actions, and it blatantly motivates him. His stance on minorities has as much to do with his legislation as his religious views have to do with his stance on abortion. His character is perfectly relevant to his actions because his character is why he is taking these actions.

[vla1ne]

No, texas is asking for ID, that is a reasonable request, considering they'll be voting for the leaders of the country/state. he used the prior administrations designated targets to implement the travel ban, and we see terrorist acts conducted in the general region of the ban, so yeah, saying we're trying to stop terrorists from that region (you know, the region that has people chanting "Death to america") sounds perfectly reasonable regardless of opinions of the people there.

 

...You serious? If you want to come into america, go to the designated entry points. if they aren't coming across the unenforced portions, then a wall will make no difference for them. Unless you think the wall will have no legal entry points? Canadians generally don't illegally immigrate to america, countries below mexico, (and mexico itself) happen to do so though. There's a literal ocean between japan/china/europe/africa/ect and america, that's a natural barrier against them. mexico, and the countries below it, are pretty much directly connected to our border. Visa recipients tend to have at least been vetted prior to entry. pray tell me, if trump hates legal immigrants for the color of their skin, what legal immigrant does a wall stop? this is why you need to stick to the actual legislation. the wall does not stop legal immigrants of any country, and the travel ban does not stop those with clean backgrounds. period.

 

As for the article:

Here's a quick solution to the first problem listed (aka the top image) GO TO THE ACTUAL ENTRANCE!. stop standing at the barricade and got t the actual door, and maybe you wouldn't have to look at your father through bars. are they too stupid to walk to the actual entry point of the country? are they incapable of getting travel visas to see each other? Next up, they claim trump was dog whistling about "brown people", evidence or gtfo with that character attack. They claim trump called illegal immigrants at the souther border rapists, so? stats back him up. 50+% of women get rape on their way across. Does that imply they're sending their most chaste illegals across with them? no. so where's he wrong? next up, they attempt to use the death of a kid who was dying well before he got here, removal of sanctuary status for people who have stayed here long enough without applying for citizenship, penalties for people who don't properly file the paperwork to come here, reminding people that DV does not qualify them for asylum, pointing out actual victims of illegal immigrant crime, ect, as their arguments, all of which fall flat as arguments against him. then they finally use the valid point that trump promised mexico would pay for the wall, and immediately slip back into the invalid argument againt him talking about women being raped, knowing the stats back his claim, all the while failing to recall that the countries he called shitholes, are in fact shitholes. (you can't tell me one person who's willing to live in said countries instead of the USA, although they'd preach from dusk till dawn that they are't shitholes). then the next step is to remind us of trump positioning the troops at the border, all the while ignoring the thousands of migrants coming up in caravans, which the media labeled a crisis well before trump did anything about it, and quickly spun on their heels once he joined them.

 

But they aren't done there, they then decide it's a smart idea to use the repeatedly debunked claim that trump/border patrol put a kid in a cage to separate him from his parents. They then conveniently forget the context of trumps twet about puerto rico, where he says the initial death toll (before leaving the country) was far lower than the end toll (after he left), he then points out in a later tweet that dems twisted his words to make them look bad, with a sarcastic comment blaming all deaths in puerto rico on old age and other such things. then the article attempts to slant his statements on puerto rico, where puerto rico has declined joining america as a proper state for decades, yet demands foreign aid (as a US territory, they deserve it, but the article ignores the subtleties of the situation and instead goes for broad brush strokes). then they get to the next big conflation between legal and illegal immigrants, once more forgetting that all important distinction of Legal vs Illegal citizens as oh so many articles do these days. but we've still got just under half a page of screwups to go. Such as conflating dressing up as a border wall for Halloween with hating all immigrants from the south, or conflating one ranting person with the entirety of a voter base, (funny enough, qualifying them for the very same thing that they accuse the opposing voter base of.)  

 

We next see them hating on a senator teaching his kid to build a borderwall with blocks, a hilarious exercise that harms nobody and instills the rules and knowledge of national border law into his kids. continuing on we see the article OP citing the people who die before ever reaching america as somehow being america's own fault. also attempting to garner sympathy for somebody who broke the law being separated from his kids (So sorry officer, I can't go to jail /get deported today for that crime i committed, gotta go pick my kids up from practice. life doesn't work that way.) then they cite one of the biggest failures in congress today, AOC (who is among the only currently elected officials to have a bill destroyed 57-0, a magically bipartisan effort.) It concludes on a hopeful note that maybe one day people will open the borders and end the hate, but there is no real hate, and the borders have been open long enough.

 

TL;DR: Your link is garbage.

 

 

You appear to be misunderstanding me, his character is irrelevant to some of these topics, because the actions taken are valid regardless of character. Prove the actions/legislation are irrelevant, till then, the motive has no place in the discussion. That's why whenever i point out character, i make sure to actually hit the motive before actually doing so, and often after doing so as well. Because the motive is only important if the action cannot be independently vouched for. Both a racist and a saint can say that countries need proper border security, and both might well post the same solution of a border wall. If you cannot debunk the racist without attacking his character, then you stand no chance if that racist is instead a saint. destroy the actual point made, the character always comes second.

[Phantom Roxas]

I've already cited testimonies explaining how the wall is impractical, and how it would not target where numerous sources agree the majority of illegal immigrants come through. I met the burden of disproving Trump's actions, so even if the racist and the saint propose the same solution, that solution has long since been argued against.

 

His actions do not hold up for any reasons that are irrelevant to his prejudices, which means those prejudices are the only remaining motive for his actions. None of his rational arguments hold up, so if you insist that I go after the argument and that his character must come second, then by all rights I have addressed his argument first and now I can move on to his character.

[vla1ne]

I responded directly to your citations, pointing out that they were filled with arguments that were either already conceded by you yourself, or .wrong in multiple points. you can go back and read them again if you'd like. I've explained that the citations you used were using "number caught" and not "the number that actually went through" for drugs, sex trafficking, and illegal immigration. in other words, i already addressed your arguments relating to the wall.

 

Are you intending to use another citation that i will summarily break down line by line like the one i just did? You have yet to bring even one citation that i have not summarily broken down piece by piece and deconstructed logically. Your attempt to blame prejudice falls flat, because you have yet to defeat the actual argument that a wall, plus surveillance and personnel is the strongest barrier against illegal immigration, human trafficking, and drug trade in relation to the border. please, cite another source filled with the same exact arguments as the last dozen, i'll show you once again, why you are wrong on the actual argument. I don't are about his character, the argument for a wall stands even without him.

[Nathanael D. Striker]

I'd like to remind people that the number caught (with an estimated proportion) is the best we have for estimating the number who come in illegally. I'd also like to remind that the latter is bigger than the former. Only question is how much bigger and is it an emergency.

[vla1ne]

I'd like to remind people that the number caught (with an estimated proportion) is the best we have for estimating the number who come in illegally. I'd also like to remind that the latter is bigger than the former. Only question is how much bigger and is it an emergency.

80% correct. Border patrol agents, estimate that illegal immigrants, on average manage to come across in generally equal numbers to what are caught daily. We have stats that indicate walled areas suffer less than non walled areas, (in relation to cities). Reasoning would tell us that people who plan to come across illegally, would more than likely do so as far away from any manner of personnel as reasonably possible when they can. There's a lot going for building a wall. The cost is intimidating, and it's something i can understand people blanching at, not to mention the problems relating to trumps claim of mexico paying us for it. but in the end a wall is a lasting solution that actually does have a noticeable effect on illegal immigration in combination with the other standard methods.

 

We have border patrol telling trump what they would like in the wall, and trump acting upon that, and the rather logical argument that wall+personnel+surveillance programs would be far more effective than just people and cameras. we also know a lot of democrats are against removing benefit programs that act as incentives for illegal immigrants, meaning the drive for people to come over and get free benefits that their own country does not provide, is not being staunched.

 

I'm honestly trying to use the most reasonable arguments possible to support my argument (at least on this front). If you look back through the pages, you'll see that I have been willing to look at it from both sides since page 1. I'e advocated for multiple avenues of solution steps, and i even pointed out the problems that have been facing the wall since day one, that have lead to this shutdown. at this point, my core arguments, the logical effectiveness of wall+personnel+surveillance has been presented that same way from the start, my point about democrats being unwilling to remove incentives for illegal immigration (such as sanctuary cities being fought for by California democrats in particular, all the way to SCOTUS) means that the wall method is the main angle left that would be as effective. In fact, a recent victory handed from the supreme court was effectively them having to remind California that illegal immigrants can be arrested and deported for crimes even after they've been released from jail.

 

The responses i get, I have explained over and over how they are not valid arguments against trump, and i'm handed different articles saying things that i have already broken down, in some cases line by line, and at this point, it's almost like the citations i'm given aren't even being read before they're tossed out. look at the article i was just given. It's filled with things that I have already explained, and links filled with arguments already proven to be false (like border patrol putting kids in cages, or the kid dying being the fault of border patrol, when it was proven to have been the days, of dehydration before they ever got to the border that did him in ). After a point, there's no real reason to believe the articles i'm being handed, are being read before they're passed off to me.

[Phantom Roxas]

i'll show you once again, why you are wrong on the actual argument.

 

If you're going to call my argument wrong before I've even made it, then what do you want me to say?

 

I provide sources, time and again, because people have provided substantial arguments and agree with one another. I do read them, so no need to make an ad hominem attack on that front. You disregard the arguments entirely, and I do mean you disregard them. You do not counter them, and instead you dismiss them and repeat "They hate Trump because he's Trump." What I do is look for other explanations that have been provided, because I believe that there are more factors going on, and Democrats have other reasons to oppose Trump.

 

I give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt, and you do not. Repeating "They hate Trump because he's Trump" over and over again is not a reasonable argument, especially when additional reasons to oppose the wall come up. Besides issues with the wall in and of itself, such as whether it would actually cover the more vulnerable areas, or whether Trump has legal authority to build there (Which we went over before regarding Texas landowners), there's also the matter of how to fund the wall, which is why taking the money from the military personnel drew such ire.

 

You think that the money in the budget set aside for his wall is insignificant? Alright, I can understand that. If you wish for him to get more money, then that much is fine. But he went behind people's backs to take the money, and that is what I have an issue with. I do think his hand was tied on that. I just do not think that Trump himself personally made a persuasive enough argument for why he should be allowed more money for the wall.

[Horu]

First, the wall has to span a distance of roughly 1500 miles. Then it needs to be about 4 feet thick. Also, it needs to rest in a 10 foot deep trench and be about 10-15 feet above the ground. In the long run, it is dependant on wether or not each state in question has funding for their portion of the wall. Ultimately, the cost of the wall will nearly bankrupt Texas and Arizona. Honestly, mobilizing the national guard to patrol the border would be more effective and economically sound than building a wall. Also, you're giving soldiers a much needed presence in their own country. For what it would cost to build the wall, the border states could assign guard units to patrol low security areas on the border for 4 weeks at a time.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

First, the wall has to span a distance of roughly 1500 miles. Then it needs to be about 4 feet thick. Also, it needs to rest in a 10 foot deep trench and be about 10-15 feet above the ground. In the long run, it is dependant on wether or not each state in question has funding for their portion of the wall. Ultimately, the cost of the wall will nearly bankrupt Texas and Arizona. Honestly, mobilizing the national guard to patrol the border would be more effective and economically sound than building a wall. Also, you're giving soldiers a much needed presence in their own country. For what it would cost to build the wall, the border states could assign guard units to patrol low security areas on the border for 4 weeks at a time.

Do you have a citation that a 25B dollar expenditure would bankrupt texas? Also why would only texas hold that burden?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Illegals are everywhere

[Horu]

Do you have a citation that a 25B dollar expenditure would bankrupt texas? Also why would only texas hold that burden?

I was implying that Arizona and Texas have the largest portion of the wall and thus would have the greater expense. Also, if the cost of the wall is $25B, you gotta take into account the average wage of the construction workers, the cost of having those workers in a safe environment, the cost of fuel and equipment repairs. By the time your done adding these factors, the $25B will be spent by the time you reach the Texas border.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I was implying that Arizona and Texas have the largest portion of the wall and thus would have the greater expense. Also, if the cost of the wall is $25B, you gotta take into account the average wage of the construction workers, the cost of having those workers in a safe environment, the cost of fuel and equipment repairs. By the time your done adding these factors, the $25B will be spent by the time you reach the Texas border.

It'll also drastically lower unemployment in those states by that logic. The wall is being build using federal funds atm, so it's not it's just coming out of texas or az

 

I do agree it will be more than 25B by the time it's done and all, but there's another labor side of that equation which has a lot of upsides

[Horu]

Technically, our troubles started when we started allowing illegals to get the same benefits as citizens. I mean, anybody would be willing to live in a country where they received all the benefits without having to follow the laws. It's like getting all the milk you want without ever needing to take care of the cow. You don't buy the cow if you if the milk is free. But only time will tell how effective the wall really is.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Technically, our troubles started when we started allowing illegals to get the same benefits as citizens. I mean, anybody would be willing to live in a country where they received all the benefits without having to follow the laws. It's like getting all the milk you want without ever needing to take care of the cow. You don't buy the cow if you if the milk is free. But only time will tell how effective the wall really is.

So what do you think will happen when we reward DACA illegals with amnesty?

[Phantom Roxas]

https://earthjustice.org/news/press/2019/new-lawsuit-challenging-trump-declaration-of-national-emergency-wall-threatens-to-desecrate-graves-and-spiritual
 
Another lawsuit against the wall. It's mostly about family trying to protect burial sites, but it also mentions that "Experts warn that President Trump’s border wall would destroy ecosystems and cause significant harms to public health in the region." Thought that point was interesting, so decided to look into that more.
 
https://www.statesman.com/news/20190329/documents-border-wall-could-impact-15-of-rio-grande-refuge
https://theintercept.com/2019/03/31/border-wall-rio-grande-valley/
 
The wall is going to harm wildlife refuges and habitats, throwing away a lot of tax dollars with no apparent plan to restore the refuge. The budget set earlier this year did allow for some protections, but the national emergency disregarded those protections.
 
Colonialism would also stand to gain by continuing to harm landowners, and no, vla1ne did not actually "destroy" this point. What he did was make a vindictive demand that those landowners deserve to suffer if they do not give Trump what he wants. There's no rational logic to that, just anger and revenge.

 

The second article is more about how Mexican-Americans want to preserve their culture, and the wall does more to harm those communities. I've seen no evidence that a wall would serve as the strongest deterrent for the most vulnerable areas, but I have seen enough evidence that it would cause more harm than good.
 
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-04-01/trump-doubles-down-on-threat-to-close-border
 
Trump has also doubled down on threatening to close the border entirely, so I question why the wall would even be necessary if he could just do that. Just seems like a waste of more money by that point, and it's all the more reason why he should just accept the money that Congress already set aside for him.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., vice chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said it was "foreign policy by tweet" and showed that Trump doesn't understand that the funds for the three Central American countries can actually help alleviate the immigration problem.

Critics also say closing the border would quickly hurt American consumers and businesses, and damage the economies of the United States and Mexico, while having a questionable effect on limiting the flow of migrants to the United States.

It had been suggested that we should remove the incentives for Mexicans to come over to America, except this argument sounds like a fairly reasonable counter to that. In other words, removing those incentives would be more likely to harm our own economy, and is unlikely to mitigate illegal immigration to the degree that you may hope it will. Please, tell me which incentives should be removed, and how removing them won't harm Americans.

[Horu]

I'm not saying all illegals are bad. Some people live in Mexico and Canada and work in the US. I have no issue with that since they are honest and not seeking benefits. I have more issue with people that refuse citizenship and still want to live in the US and claim all the benefits of being a citizen. But if we keep allowing illegals to milk the system, I say that the river will eventually run dry and the mountain will crumble. Just a matter of time.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Trump should just go full Andrew Jackson "Judge X made his ruling, now let him enforce it"

[Nathanael D. Striker]

Trump should just go full Andrew Jackson "Judge X made his ruling, now let him enforce it"

 

That's a terrible idea, Winter. It spits in the face of Checks and Balances, which is a key part of our Government. To suggest that Trump ignore that is to encourage a greater buildup of power in the Office of the President, and that would be a nasty precedent indeed.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That's a terrible idea, Winter. It spits in the face of Checks and Balances, which is a key part of our Government. To suggest that Trump ignore that is to encourage a greater buildup of power in the Office of the President, and that would be a nasty precedent indeed.

The precedent has been set. This is a nat sec issue and people are dying. 

[Phantom Roxas]

You're specifically citing the Trail of Tears. That's a disgusting precedent to follow on, but I appreciate that you're honest that ethnic cleansing is the primary motive here. I don't think this is the first time you've invoked the Trail of Tears to support Trump.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I'm using a legal precedent. Nice bait. Making no comment on how it was used

[Phantom Roxas]

Legal precedent or not, it is a perfectly objectionable example. That would not help our national security at all. As I've stated already, it would only serve to pass off Trump's prejudices as though it were legislation that benefits the populace, when they're really just heinous acts of oppression against minorities.

 

The Indian Removal Act was legal. The Holocaust was legal. Apartheid was legal. Those are the legal precedents you're relying on, so calling it a "legal precedent" means nothing if you cannot prove why that legal precedent is valuable.