Jump to content


Photo
* * - - - 4 votes

Trump Threatens to Shut Government To Force Dems to Pay for Wall He Said Mexico Would Pay For


  • Please log in to reply
347 replies to this topic

#61 Guido2

Guido2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,745 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 11:51 AM

No, it's an appeal to actually enforcing the law rather than winking at it.   Reducing illegal immigration is good for ALL our citizens, white, black, brown or other.  But keep making it about racism.  It's worked so well up to now.

 

Ahhhh MMMMaaaaayyyybbbeeee. I some of you got your head out of  your you know what and actually paid attention to the news. You would know that Trump is pretty much on pace with what Obama did regarding illegals.

 

The only diff is that Obama kept it quiet and Trump announces when he takes a good poop. 

 

I thought it would be great..... but it was HHHHHUUUUGGGGHHHHHHH....no one could believe it ... what I did...totally .....GRRREATTTT.....btw did I mention it was HUUUUUGGGGGGHH......

 

Sheessssh ;) :D :D



#62 veritas

veritas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45,476 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 11:55 AM

Ahhhh MMMMaaaaayyyybbbeeee. I some of you got your head out of  your you know what and actually paid attention to the news. You would know that Trump is pretty much on pace with what Obama did regarding illegals.

 

The only diff is that Obama kept it quiet and Trump announces when he takes a good poop. 

 

I thought it would be great..... but it was HHHHHUUUUGGGGHHHHHHH....no one could believe it ... what I did...totally .....GRRREATTTT.....btw did I mention it was HUUUUUGGGGGGHH......

 

Sheessssh ;) :D :D

Turning people back at the border is not a deportation, despite what Obama thinks.  Trump is actually attempting to track down and get rid of felons and others here illegally.  No more catch and release nonsense either.  Oh, here's a paper.  Come to court in 60 days.  Yea, sure.


Ne Nuntium Necare

#63 Guido2

Guido2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,745 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:00 PM

Yah know, looking ahead, lets say the gov shutsdown because of Trump-wall, lets say he somehow screws us with healthcare, lets say he refuses to release his taxes, lets say in conjucntion with that he takes care of his buds in the 1%... and so on.

 

Watch out.....very much like the Japanese said after Pearl Harbor.... Trump will awaken a sleeping giant. Like this.......

 



#64 veritas

veritas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45,476 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:00 PM

I would genually like to see the statistics and breakdown that you are using to justify building a wall vs stepped up enforcement as it stands. That is I need a figure that says X numbers of illegals come in over a year multiplied by the dollar amount spent per person on social services. And see how things balance out.

 

Don't rush.... I got all afternoon. Or month, Or year...........

I can give you studies but you'll whine over who is doing them.  That keeping out as many illegals as possible saves us large amounts of money is hardly arguable. That it will pay for the wall is certain.  Now, whether stepping up enforcement under the current conditions will do the same thing is another issue and one I haven't seen studied.  But what happens when the next Democrat gets in and all that enforcement vanishes?  The wall will at least be there for good.


Ne Nuntium Necare

#65 Manny

Manny

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 5,509 posts
  • LocationEastern Shore of Maryland

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:00 PM

How does he figure this deal gets enough votes to pass even with Dems?

If Trump promises this job to union contractors, the AFL-CIO will snap their fingers and Democrats may be boxed in a corner.

#66 Guido2

Guido2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,745 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:02 PM

Turning people back at the border is not a deportation, despite what Obama thinks.  Trump is actually attempting to track down and get rid of felons and others here illegally.  No more catch and release nonsense either.  Oh, here's a paper.  Come to court in 60 days.  Yea, sure.

 

Stats show me stats. Who got turned back, who got shipped back and when.

Otherwise sit down and shut up.



#67 Guido2

Guido2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,745 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:05 PM

I can give you studies but you'll whine over who is doing them.  That keeping out as many illegals as possible saves us large amounts of money is hardly arguable. That it will pay for the wall is certain.  Now, whether stepping up enforcement under the current conditions will do the same thing is another issue and one I haven't seen studied.  But what happens when the next Democrat gets in and all that enforcement vanishes?  The wall will at least be there for good.

 

Then present them. I don't whine I comment. Hard cold facts... put up or shut up.

 

Unfortunately, gut-runners like you on both sides of the line give debate a bad name.

 

So, your turn. Facts buddy facts.



#68 jtowne-swim

jtowne-swim

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20,210 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:09 PM

If Trump promises this job to union contractors, the AFL-CIO will snap their fingers and Democrats may be boxed in a corner.

Yes I get that he is trying to get the dems on board.  The things he has to do to get that will not engender 33 Republicans (assuming the Hassert rule is dead).


In 20 years....... when global warming causes the polar ice caps to melt....... and the whole planet floods. Swimmers will rule the World:cool: !

ACTION....ADVENTURE.....EXCITEMENT....A Jedi seeks not these things.:D
-Master Yoda

#69 JoyinMudville

JoyinMudville

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 11,863 posts
  • LocationBrooklyn

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:39 PM

Turning people back at the border is not a deportation, despite what Obama thinks.  Trump is actually attempting to track down and get rid of felons and others here illegally.  No more catch and release nonsense either.  Oh, here's a paper.  Come to court in 60 days.  Yea, sure.

 

The Obama administration deported more illegal aliens than the previous administration.



#70 Guido2

Guido2

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9,745 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:41 PM

The Obama administration deported more illegal aliens than the previous administration.

Not according to some on this thread. According to them Trump already has. ;) :lol:



#71 veritas

veritas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45,476 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:43 PM

Then present them. I don't whine I comment. Hard cold facts... put up or shut up.

 

Unfortunately, gut-runners like you on both sides of the line give debate a bad name.

 

So, your turn. Facts buddy facts.

I've been in here debating since long before you made an appearance.  Here's some data for you.  

 

http://cis.org/The-C...gal-Immigration


Ne Nuntium Necare

#72 veritas

veritas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45,476 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:45 PM

The Obama administration deported more illegal aliens than the previous administration.

I have no idea how many people Bush deported.  I do know that calling it a deportation when turning people back at the border is specious fudging of the numbers, regardless of who does it.


Edited by veritas, 21 April 2017 - 12:46 PM.

Ne Nuntium Necare

#73 hst2

hst2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 92,563 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:54 PM

I've been in here debating since long before you made an appearance. Here's some data for you.

http://cis.org/The-C...gal-Immigration


That is a biased source and is predictably innaccuate:

"Camarota’s Estimation Of Immigrant’s Use Of Government Benefits Is Based On A Debunked Study. The CIS report assumes that immigrants “receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes." That assertion comes from a Heritage Foundation study from 2013 by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine. The Cato Institute reviewed that report, concluding that it is “depressingly static, leading to a massive underestimation of the economic benefits of immigration and diminishing estimated tax revenue” because it “explicitly refuses to consider the GDP growth and economic productivity gains from immigration reform—factors that increase native-born American incomes.” It is also important to note that Richwine has a history of disseminating “fundamentally flawed” reports on immigration and has opined that Latinos may “never reach IQ parity” with white people. From the May 7, 2013, Cato Institute analysis of the Heritage Foundation report...


The Cost Of The Wall Will Be Much Higher Than The Report Estimates. CIS’ claims are based on some of the earliest estimates of the cost of the wall, creating a range based on Trump’s figure of $12 billion and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) estimate of $15 billion. A Reuters report based on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report estimated that the border wall “would cost as much as $21.6 billion.” The report also noted that another group, Bernstein Research, has pegged the cost at about $25 billion after taking into account “uncertainties around the project that could drive its cost up.” These estimates did not take into account the ongoing cost of maintaining the wall. From the February 9 Reuters article...


The Report Places An Arbitrary And Overly Generous Number On The Wall’s Effectiveness. The CIS report discusses various figures for the number of people the wall might prevent from coming into the United States: “9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross [the border] in the next decade,” and “half of those expected to successfully enter illegally” to claim that “it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion,” even though there is no evidence to support either level of effectiveness. There have been a number of reports explaining that building a wall would be ineffective at stopping illegal immigration. The Cato Institute’s David Bier told Wired, “At a basic level, a wall or fence can never stop illegal immigration because a wall or fence cannot apprehend anyone.” The Wired report also explained that many immigrants “do not attempt to circumvent border control, but instead go to entry points willingly and seek asylum or other protections.” BBC explained that “it’s next to impossible to construct a wall that can’t be tunnelled under,” adding, “Since 1990, federal agents have discovered more than 200 tunnels under the existing border walls.” Additionally, as Forbes pointed out, “analysts believe the majority (possibly vast majority) of illegal immigrants enter America by air” because many “arrive in America with a visa - and then simply don't leave.” The Migration Policy Institute noted that a border wall would not deter immigrants fleeing poverty and execution but rather steer them “to alternative routes,” which would undoubtedly result in “an increase in the number of deaths.” Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) own estimates confirmed that finding, concluding that while there was a drop in apprehensions where a fence existed, “the drop there was followed by a spike in apprehensions” in other areas. CBP also found that breaches to the border fence in fiscal year 2010 cost the agency “at least $7.2 million to repair.” Experts including CBP officials, law enforcement officials along the southern border, senators, and former DHS secretaries have been vocal in their opposition to the wall, saying that it would be “of little or no value” and that it’s “one of the dumbest ideas.” [Wired, 1/19/17; BBC, 1/26/17; Forbes, 1/28/17; Migration Policy Institute, 10/5/16; Bloomberg, 2/13/17; Media Matters, 12/1/17; 9/1/16, The Hill, 7/13/16]"

https://mediamatters...proposal/215435

Edited by hst2, 21 April 2017 - 01:04 PM.

"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man. - HL Mencken

#74 BaySock

BaySock

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,274 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 12:59 PM

I've been in here debating since long before you made an appearance.  Here's some data for you.  

 

http://cis.org/The-C...gal-Immigration

 

Geeeeeeezzzzzz!!!!  You are using the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) as your data sources.  Fellow, you might as well wiped your rear and used that.  I can't believe you use CIS.  It's crack pipe K Street DC outfit known for things like advocating selective breeding and other far out thoughts.  Flush this BS organization and it's analysis....  

 

:D   CIS, CIS....Get Real!


Edited by BaySock, 21 April 2017 - 01:00 PM.


#75 veritas

veritas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45,476 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 01:12 PM

Geeeeeeezzzzzz!!!!  You are using the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) as your data sources.  Fellow, you might as well wiped your rear and used that.  I can't believe you use CIS.  It's crack pipe K Street DC outfit known for things like advocating selective breeding and other far out thoughts.  Flush this BS organization and it's analysis....  

 

:D   CIS, CIS....Get Real!

Just like I said.  Complaining about the source.  Naturally, open border folks will have their own "numbers" so what's the point?  Both will think the other wrong but common sense tells you that keeping out illegals saves money.  


Ne Nuntium Necare

#76 hst2

hst2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 92,563 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 01:15 PM

Illegal immigration is already way down.  It could be cut to a trickle with the wall added.  Multiply the savings to taxpayers of each of those people who does not come here illegally and the wall will easily pay for itself inside of a decade.


I think you have fallen for the wall scam much in the way semi auto fell for the Susan Rice scam.

Trump shouldn't need Democrats to vote for the wall, unless Republicans refuse to vote for it. Perhaps those Republicans see the scam.

Look at the man you are dealing with, our president. He will support anything that he thinks will win him favor. He stands for virtually nothing.

True, that as a leading Obama birther, he is an incredible racist who really would like to rid the country of brown people. But the fact is, other than a lot of bitter, white nationalists, on this issue, he doesn't have many people on his side.
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man. - HL Mencken

#77 veritas

veritas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45,476 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 01:15 PM

That is a biased source and is predictably innaccuate:

"Camarota’s Estimation Of Immigrant’s Use Of Government Benefits Is Based On A Debunked Study. The CIS report assumes that immigrants “receive far more in government benefits than they pay in taxes." That assertion comes from a Heritage Foundation study from 2013 by Robert Rector and Jason Richwine. The Cato Institute reviewed that report, concluding that it is “depressingly static, leading to a massive underestimation of the economic benefits of immigration and diminishing estimated tax revenue” because it “explicitly refuses to consider the GDP growth and economic productivity gains from immigration reform—factors that increase native-born American incomes.” It is also important to note that Richwine has a history of disseminating “fundamentally flawed” reports on immigration and has opined that Latinos may “never reach IQ parity” with white people. From the May 7, 2013, Cato Institute analysis of the Heritage Foundation report...


The Cost Of The Wall Will Be Much Higher Than The Report Estimates. CIS’ claims are based on some of the earliest estimates of the cost of the wall, creating a range based on Trump’s figure of $12 billion and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) estimate of $15 billion. A Reuters report based on a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) report estimated that the border wall “would cost as much as $21.6 billion.” The report also noted that another group, Bernstein Research, has pegged the cost at about $25 billion after taking into account “uncertainties around the project that could drive its cost up.” These estimates did not take into account the ongoing cost of maintaining the wall. From the February 9 Reuters article...


The Report Places An Arbitrary And Overly Generous Number On The Wall’s Effectiveness. The CIS report discusses various figures for the number of people the wall might prevent from coming into the United States: “9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross [the border] in the next decade,” and “half of those expected to successfully enter illegally” to claim that “it would save taxpayers nearly $64 billion,” even though there is no evidence to support either level of effectiveness. There have been a number of reports explaining that building a wall would be ineffective at stopping illegal immigration. The Cato Institute’s David Bier told Wired, “At a basic level, a wall or fence can never stop illegal immigration because a wall or fence cannot apprehend anyone.” The Wired report also explained that many immigrants “do not attempt to circumvent border control, but instead go to entry points willingly and seek asylum or other protections.” BBC explained that “it’s next to impossible to construct a wall that can’t be tunnelled under,” adding, “Since 1990, federal agents have discovered more than 200 tunnels under the existing border walls.” Additionally, as Forbes pointed out, “analysts believe the majority (possibly vast majority) of illegal immigrants enter America by air” because many “arrive in America with a visa - and then simply don't leave.” The Migration Policy Institute noted that a border wall would not deter immigrants fleeing poverty and execution but rather steer them “to alternative routes,” which would undoubtedly result in “an increase in the number of deaths.” Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) own estimates confirmed that finding, concluding that while there was a drop in apprehensions where a fence existed, “the drop there was followed by a spike in apprehensions” in other areas. CBP also found that breaches to the border fence in fiscal year 2010 cost the agency “at least $7.2 million to repair.” Experts including CBP officials, law enforcement officials along the southern border, senators, and former DHS secretaries have been vocal in their opposition to the wall, saying that it would be “of little or no value” and that it’s “one of the dumbest ideas.” [Wired, 1/19/17; BBC, 1/26/17; Forbes, 1/28/17; Migration Policy Institute, 10/5/16; Bloomberg, 2/13/17; Media Matters, 12/1/17; 9/1/16, The Hill, 7/13/16]"

https://mediamatters...proposal/215435

Like I said, everyone has an opinion.  What can't happen is maintaining a leaky border and letting people overstay visas.  There is nothing wrong with immigration but it must be legal.


Ne Nuntium Necare

#78 Rael

Rael

    Rational member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 13,222 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 01:17 PM

Like I said, everyone has an opinion.  What can't happen is maintaining a leaky border and letting people overstay visas.  There is nothing wrong with immigration but it must be legal.

Unless they go after the demand side with the same gusto, it is all posturing. 


Pessimism is just an ugly word for 'pattern recognition'.

#79 veritas

veritas

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 45,476 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 01:20 PM

Unless they go after the demand side with the same gusto, it is all posturing. 

I would agree which is why guest worker programs need to be expanded and made more effective.  Seafood workers come to MD yearly, do their jobs and go home.  There is no reason that can't work in other areas.  Where there is work that Americans can't or won't do, we need to make some provisions.


Ne Nuntium Necare

#80 hst2

hst2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 92,563 posts

Posted 21 April 2017 - 01:21 PM

Like I said, everyone has an opinion.  What can't happen is maintaining a leaky border and letting people overstay visas.  There is nothing wrong with immigration but it must be legal.


Opinions from neutral sources should carry more weight.
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from man. - HL Mencken




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users