Military Will Be Used To Protect Border

[*Nately120*]

(04-05-2018, 08:37 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you think this will deter them, then you don't understand the people crossing the border. They already knowingly risk rape, arrest, robbery, dehydration, starvation, exhaustion, broken bones, falls, wild animals, and a whole host of other things to get here. They risk death, knowingly, on a regular basis to get into this country through the desert.

Increasing border patrols won't stop this. Adding the NG to the border won't stop it. They will continue to cross in places that can't effectively be monitored (which is what they do already) and put themselves in harm's way to get here. The reward is greater than the risk for them.

Yep, and that's why we need to punish the people who keep rewarding them for coming here if we actually want to see things change.  Do people actually look at this issue and say "Hmm...how can we deal with this in a manner that punishes the destitute brown foreigners but not the rich white Americans?"

Is there an actual good answer for this?  I'm dying to hear it, because all I see is a political party that swears up and down that it wants to stop illegal immigration (and it'll even generously take as much of my income as it can to do so) while it continuously ignores and/or flat out rewards the people who are major players in the entire process.

[Dill]

(04-05-2018, 08:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: No. Even detaining someone crossing the border would be moving from support to enforcement, which would be in violation of U.S. law.

Illegals better watch their step then. The US military is there to surveill. No more playing games.

[Dill]

(04-05-2018, 10:20 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Yep, and that's why we need to punish the people who keep rewarding them for coming here if we actually want to see things change.  Do people actually look at this issue and say "Hmm...how can we deal with this in a manner that punishes the destitute brown foreigners but not the rich white Americans?"

Is there an actual good answer for this?  I'm dying to hear it, because all I see is a political party that swears up and down that it wants to stop illegal immigration (and it'll even generously take as much of my income as it can to do so) while it continuously ignores and/or flat out rewards the people who are major players in the entire process.

So you are saying Republican politicians should punish their donors just to keep their promises to the people who voted them in?

That's not going to work if the Republicans want to keep the control of all three branches of government, which they have now.

Better to keep the voters focused on what's happening at the border. The US military will be involved now and Trump's tweets have stalled a massive caravan of illegals looking for an easy life in the US taking field labor away from Americans who want to pick cabbage and hoe sugar beets. How many rapes did that prevent??  I'm guessing somewhere between 300-1,000. Of course Trump won't get any credit for Making America Great AGain one step at a time.

When journalists spin this accomplishment as a big show for nothing, spin right back at them--they are just Trump haters who can't stand all the winning. Let's have no more talk about rewarding "major players." If we all keep our eyes on the border we can stop "them."

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2018, 11:11 AM)Dill Wrote:
So you are saying Republican politicians should punish their donors just to keep their promises to the people who voted them in?

That's not going to work if the Republicans want to keep the control of all three branches of government, which they have now.

Better to keep the voters focused on what's happening at the border. The US military will be involved now and Trump's tweets have stalled a massive caravan of illegals looking for an easy life in the US taking field labor away from Americans who want to pick cabbage and hoe sugar beets. How many rapes did that prevent??  I'm guessing somewhere between 300-1,000. Of course Trump won't get any credit for Making America Great AGain one step at a time.

When journalists spin this accomplishment as a big show for nothing, spin right back at them--they are just Trump haters who can't stand all the winning. Let's have no more talk about rewarding "major players." If we all keep our eyes on the border we can stop "them."

What's funny is that one of the things Trump has talked about, ending/renegotiating NAFTA, could actually help this situation (if Trump didn't approach these things in a zero sum way). NAFTA has done tremendous harm to Mexico's economy and is one of the reasons the drug issue has gotten so bad there, as well as why we see so many immigrants coming across the border. Combine that with the change in our immigration policies that made Mexican immigrants the wrong kind of immigrants for us even though they are the ones we rely upon the most for agricultural labor, and there is a perfect storm of problems that is causing the immigration issue we see today.

We could pour as much money into border security as we pour into the DoD and it isn't going to do a damn bit of good to solve these problems. The solutions that have been offered by our government (note: this isn't Trump specific, or even GOP specific) do not solve anything, they are nothing more than optics for political gain. You can slap a fresh coat of paint on a condemned house, but it's still a condemned house, and that is what our current immigration policy amounts to.

[Dill]

(04-05-2018, 11:21 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What's funny is that one of the things Trump has talked about, ending/renegotiating NAFTA, could actually help this situation (if Trump didn't approach these things in a zero sum way). NAFTA has done tremendous harm to Mexico's economy and is one of the reasons the drug issue has gotten so bad there, as well as why we see so many immigrants coming across the border. Combine that with the change in our immigration policies that made Mexican immigrants the wrong kind of immigrants for us even though they are the ones we rely upon the most for agricultural labor, and there is a perfect storm of problems that is causing the immigration issue we see today.

We could pour as much money into border security as we pour into the DoD and it isn't going to do a damn bit of good to solve these problems. The solutions that have been offered by our government (note: this isn't Trump specific, or even GOP specific) do not solve anything, they are nothing more than optics for political gain. You can slap a fresh coat of paint on a condemned house, but it's still a condemned house, and that is what our current immigration policy amounts to.

Voters go for fresh paint, as the OP demonstrates.

Until that changes, expect more of the same.

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2018, 11:25 AM)Dill Wrote: Voters go for fresh paint, as the OP demonstrates.

Until that changes, expect more of the same.

Oh, I know. People want things that happen quickly. Finding real solutions takes time to not only conceive of, but also takes time to see real results. The best solutions involve a short-term, reactionary approach that fixes the immediate problem and funding to investigate and implement a longer term, more holistic and proactive approach to prevent a continuation. What our politicians tend to engage in, and all the voters seem to care about, is the short term. What gets them through the next election cycle? If the voters don't demand better then this is just going to continue.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-05-2018, 11:21 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: What's funny is that one of the things Trump has talked about, ending/renegotiating NAFTA, could actually help this situation (if Trump didn't approach these things in a zero sum way). NAFTA has done tremendous harm to Mexico's economy and is one of the reasons the drug issue has gotten so bad there, as well as why we see so many immigrants coming across the border. Combine that with the change in our immigration policies that made Mexican immigrants the wrong kind of immigrants for us even though they are the ones we rely upon the most for agricultural labor, and there is a perfect storm of problems that is causing the immigration issue we see today.

We could pour as much money into border security as we pour into the DoD and it isn't going to do a damn bit of good to solve these problems. The solutions that have been offered by our government (note: this isn't Trump specific, or even GOP specific) do not solve anything, they are nothing more than optics for political gain. You can slap a fresh coat of paint on a condemned house, but it's still a condemned house, and that is what our current immigration policy amounts to.

We messed up years ago when we gave Mexico back half their country. We should have just kept it and driven the native population south. Would have been better for everyone, and our border would be more manageable. Besides Mexico has shown they have no idea how to have a civilized country.

Since we can’t put that toothpaste back into the bottle, we should seal off Mexico cancel nafta and close the border unless they agree to our trade demands.

[masterpanthera_t]

(04-05-2018, 11:21 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: We could pour as much money into border security as we pour into the DoD and it isn't going to do a damn bit of good to solve these problems. The solutions that have been offered by our government (note: this isn't Trump specific, or even GOP specific) do not solve anything, they are nothing more than optics for political gain. You can slap a fresh coat of paint on a condemned house, but it's still a condemned house, and that is what our current immigration policy amounts to.

I'm inclined to agree with a little bit of this, but genuinely request you to expound on these statements. Why would spending money on security not solve these problems and what other solutions are you referring to? I don't recall any statements on this board at least that are not simplistic in nature on this particular topic, so if you could actually provide a detailed talk here it would be useful to consider.

[Belsnickel]

(04-05-2018, 01:44 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: I'm inclined to agree with a little bit of this, but genuinely request you to expound on these statements. Why would spending money on security not solve these problems and what other solutions are you referring to? I don't recall any statements on this board at least that are not simplistic in nature on this particular topic, so if you could actually provide a detailed talk here it would be useful to consider.

This conversation would be a large one that could get very complex. I should note that one of the biggest things to look at and consider would be a reevaluation of NAFTA. This by no means is me saying we should scrap free trade with Mexico, but we should be looking at ways that we (and Canada) can work in partnership that benefits all countries. Finding ways to allow for economic growth up and down the continent will benefit all of us. This could include preferential treatment for Mexican goods that compete with Chinese products, it could mean changes to our agricultural subsidies so that farmers in Mexico can make money on goods shipped to us, it could mean a lot of different possibilities.

In addition to all of this are some other policies that are tangentially related. We all know of the problems that are occurring in Mexico regarding the cartels. Our DoJ has turned a blind eye to some of this because of the big money donors. Does anyone remember the HSBC issue a few years back and our government letting them get away with facilitating the money laundering for these cartels? If we work on the money side of these things, we can help Mexico better put an end to these cartels.

There are a lot of things that we can do that could help the situation in Mexico, and that is what will help curb illegal immigration. We saw a decrease in border crossings post-Great Recession. This was all because it wasn't as economically advantageous to risk coming over here. That should be setting off all sorts of bells for policy makers as far as what should be done to get at the root of the issue. We share borders with two countries (on the mainland). After our own interests, those two countries should be the next in line because when we help them, we also help ourselves.

[masterpanthera_t]

(04-05-2018, 02:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This conversation would be a large one that could get very complex. I should note that one of the biggest things to look at and consider would be a reevaluation of NAFTA. This by no means is me saying we should scrap free trade with Mexico, but we should be looking at ways that we (and Canada) can work in partnership that benefits all countries. Finding ways to allow for economic growth up and down the continent will benefit all of us. This could include preferential treatment for Mexican goods that compete with Chinese products, it could mean changes to our agricultural subsidies so that farmers in Mexico can make money on goods shipped to us, it could mean a lot of different possibilities.

In addition to all of this are some other policies that are tangentially related. We all know of the problems that are occurring in Mexico regarding the cartels. Our DoJ has turned a blind eye to some of this because of the big money donors. Does anyone remember the HSBC issue a few years back and our government letting them get away with facilitating the money laundering for these cartels? If we work on the money side of these things, we can help Mexico better put an end to these cartels.

There are a lot of things that we can do that could help the situation in Mexico, and that is what will help curb illegal immigration. We saw a decrease in border crossings post-Great Recession. This was all because it wasn't as economically advantageous to risk coming over here. That should be setting off all sorts of bells for policy makers as far as what should be done to get at the root of the issue. We share borders with two countries (on the mainland). After our own interests, those two countries should be the next in line because when we help them, we also help ourselves.

This is a much more substantive discussion as you've stated before, and one one post probably won't suffice.  Having said that, I will at the least agree that this requires a multi faceted solution along the lines you suggested here. You touched on some factors and how to address them here, and my response is unfairly brief, but when I have some time I'd like to revisit this topic and get into the details more. But this is a much better start to understanding the problem and the potential solutions. Thank you for your quick post on this.

[StLucieBengal]

(04-05-2018, 02:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This conversation would be a large one that could get very complex. I should note that one of the biggest things to look at and consider would be a reevaluation of NAFTA. This by no means is me saying we should scrap free trade with Mexico, but we should be looking at ways that we (and Canada) can work in partnership that benefits all countries. Finding ways to allow for economic growth up and down the continent will benefit all of us. This could include preferential treatment for Mexican goods that compete with Chinese products, it could mean changes to our agricultural subsidies so that farmers in Mexico can make money on goods shipped to us, it could mean a lot of different possibilities.

In addition to all of this are some other policies that are tangentially related. We all know of the problems that are occurring in Mexico regarding the cartels. Our DoJ has turned a blind eye to some of this because of the big money donors. Does anyone remember the HSBC issue a few years back and our government letting them get away with facilitating the money laundering for these cartels? If we work on the money side of these things, we can help Mexico better put an end to these cartels.

There are a lot of things that we can do that could help the situation in Mexico, and that is what will help curb illegal immigration. We saw a decrease in border crossings post-Great Recession. This was all because it wasn't as economically advantageous to risk coming over here. That should be setting off all sorts of bells for policy makers as far as what should be done to get at the root of the issue. We share borders with two countries (on the mainland). After our own interests, those two countries should be the next in line because when we help them, we also help ourselves.

I would support strengthening the continent. But Mexico needs to step up a lot and until they do there should be a tight border. It’s a long path for sure and the border can loosen after Mexico reaches some checkpoints. A continent doing well is ideal, but not at our expense, especially when Mexico does nothing.

[GMDino]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/trump-denies-he-knew-about-lawyers-130000-payment-to-stormy-daniels.html

Quote:National Guard at the border 

The president also said he planned to send between 2,000 and 4,000 National Guard troops to the U.S. border with Mexico.
Trump did not know specifically how much it would cost to send the troops there.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2018, 08:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/05/trump-denies-he-knew-about-lawyers-130000-payment-to-stormy-daniels.html

I'd be surprised if anyone knew the specific cost; but, I assume something is funny. 

[GMDino]

(04-05-2018, 09:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'd be surprised if anyone knew the specific cost; but, I assume something is funny. 

Trump not knowing something/anything shouldn't be funny anymore...but it is.  He runs his mouth and has no idea what the effects are of what he's saying.

You gotta laugh or you'll cry.

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2018, 09:30 PM)GMDino Wrote: Trump not knowing something/anything shouldn't be funny anymore...but it is.  He runs his mouth and has no idea what the effects are of what he's saying.

You gotta laugh or you'll cry.

This just seems like another generic "I don't like Trump reply". Would you expect any POTUS to know the specific cost of such a deployment, in such an early stage? 

Do you think Bush or Obama knew the specific costs when they proposed the exact same action? 

[GMDino]

(04-05-2018, 09:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This just seems like another generic "I don't like Trump reply". Would you expect any POTUS to know the specific cost of such a deployment, in such an early stage? 

Do you think Bush or Obama knew the specific costs when they proposed the exact same action? 

I'd expect the POTUS to not make policy decisions after watching a morning talk show and then tweeting about it.  That's the difference between simply not knowing what it will cost and not knowing anything.

But, again, if someone refuses to be critical of anything Trump says or does it won't matter.



Oh, how many miles do those 2000-4000 military have to cover?  And is that number the amount approved by the governors of the states?

So many questions...and no plan.  Trump should trademark that phrase. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2018, 09:45 PM)GMDino Wrote: I'd expect the POTUS to not make policy decisions after watching a morning talk show and then tweeting about it.  That's the difference between simply not knowing what it will cost and not knowing anything.

But, again, if someone refuses to be critical of anything Trump says or does it won't matter.



Oh, how many miles do those 2000-4000 military have to cover?  And is that number the amount approved by the governors of the states?

So many questions...and no plan.  Trump should trademark that phrase. 

I hate typing the same question over and over and over, but your responses are so entertaining and telling.

Do you expect and POTUS to know the specific cost this early in the planning process?

[GMDino]

(04-05-2018, 09:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I hate typing the same question over and over and over, but your responses are so entertaining and telling.

Do you expect and POTUS to know the specific cost this early in the planning process?

And I hate that you keep asking a question that has nothing to do with what I was talking about and explained clearly.

You can keep distracting from Trump being clueless if you want...I'm just not playing that game.  

[*bfine32*]

(04-05-2018, 10:19 PM)GMDino Wrote: And I hate that you keep asking a question that has nothing to do with what I was talking about and explained clearly.

You can keep distracting from Trump being clueless if you want...I'm just not playing that game.  

Except the question I posed had exactly to do with the post I responded to(aka "what I was talking about"). You can choose to answer the question posed or you cannot. Your continual not answering simply illustrates my point, So I will ask the exact same question again that is in direct response to your post:

Do you expect any POTUS to know the exact cost of such an operation this early into the planning process? 

You can either answer directly, continue to post generic "I don't like Trump responses", or post a meme

[fredtoast]

(04-05-2018, 11:17 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Do you expect any POTUS to know the exact cost of such an operation this early into the planning process? 

I do.

He is the freaking POTUS.  He should be able to pick up the phone and get an estimate immediately.

Is the military so completely clueless that they have no idea what it costs to deploy troops?