Why Is Trump's Wall A Bad Thing?

[*Nately120*]

(01-31-2019, 03:32 PM)michaelsean Wrote: The Chinese and the Romans built some pretty impressive walls a couple thousand years ago.  We can see if they want to do it again.  We may have to tweak the 13th amendment to allow for the "workers" they bring in.  I think the exclusion for convicts would only apply to people convicted here.

Maybe aliens will built it, like the pyramids and stonehenge. 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(01-29-2019, 01:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's one of those "law and order" areas that conservatives tend to have the edge on.


1. Undocumented immigrants already don't have access to government assistance.
2. Fixes for these sorts of things are included in the comprehensive overhaul attempts. Republicans in the House refused to pass it.


The problem is that this is the messaging from Republican politicians, as well. Just lots of lying all around.

1. Are you absolutely sure about that, just cause it's a law doesn't mean people can't find a way around it.

Willing to be your life on it that we can't find someone that is illegal and getting gov assistance?

Typically, any proof an illegal alien provides as evidence of legal status, regardless of its fraudulent nature, will satisfy social services agencies that determine the person's benefit eligibility because an intake clerk simply cannot make the determination that someone is an illegal alien. Therefore, the law is usually overlooked and illegal aliens manage to qualify for state and local benefits.

[Belsnickel]

(01-31-2019, 09:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1. Are you absolutely sure about that, just cause it's a law doesn't mean people can't find a way around it.

Willing to be your life on it that we can't find someone that is illegal and getting gov assistance?

Typically, any proof an illegal alien provides as evidence of legal status, regardless of its fraudulent nature, will satisfy social services agencies that determine the person's benefit eligibility because an intake clerk simply cannot make the determination that someone is an illegal alien. Therefore, the law is usually overlooked and illegal aliens manage to qualify for state and local benefits.

I'm sure we could find one, but I'm sure they are the exception and not the rule. Most undocumented immigrants do everything they can to not interact with the government. They aren't going to seek government assistance because they know they aren't eligible and because it comes with risk.

[CJD]

(01-31-2019, 09:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1. Are you absolutely sure about that, just cause it's a law doesn't mean people can't find a way around it.

Willing to be your life on it that we can't find someone that is illegal and getting gov assistance?

Typically, any proof an illegal alien provides as evidence of legal status, regardless of its fraudulent nature, will satisfy social services agencies that determine the person's benefit eligibility because an intake clerk simply cannot make the determination that someone is an illegal alien. Therefore, the law is usually overlooked and illegal aliens manage to qualify for state and local benefits.

I wouldn't call that the law being overlooked as much as I would call it the law being broken.

By the illegal immigrant with fraudulent documentation.

Just like you can't blame a bank for being robbed, you can't really blame the immigration system for being tricked with fraudulent documentation.

There are ways for both to be made more difficult (higher security at banks and harder to duplicate documentation for immigration), but a law being broken isn't the same as it being overlooked.

[Stonyhands]

Its hard to respond to so many garbage arguments. But it’s hilarious to read how so many of you are now border security experts just regurgitating everything they’ve learned from MSM. The wall isn’t a complete end all solution for illegal immigration. It’s never claimed to be. For years there’s been bi-partisan support for a wall but no follow through just as there’s never been follow through on immigration reform that would pave a quicker and easier path for US citizenship. What’s the issue now?

The left just cannot handle this president fulfilling a campaign promise such as building the wall. It would be too damaging to the 2020 elections. Pelosi and the left show that DACA recipient’s are only political pawns as Trump’s willing, despite taking a lot of flak from the right, to compromise on amnesty, for funding for the wall and immigration reform, yet they will not compromise at all. Again this would be too damaging politically for the left.

[fredtoast]

(01-31-2019, 09:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: 1. Are you absolutely sure about that, just cause it's a law doesn't mean people can't find a way around it.

Willing to be your life on it that we can't find someone that is illegal and getting gov assistance?

There are just as many undocumented immigrantys working under false social security numbers paying FICA that they will never be able to collect.

So if we are just going to use "make believe" numbers I am going to say it all evens out.

[fredtoast]

(02-01-2019, 02:30 AM)Stonyhands Wrote:   Pelosi and the left show that DACA recipient’s are only political pawns as Trump’s willing, despite taking a lot of flak from the right, to compromise on amnesty, for funding for the wall and immigration reform, yet they will not compromise at all.  

Trump never offered amnesty.  He offered three year temporary protection.

Since Trump was theone that ended DACA he is offering less than he took away in ther first place.  

[Stonyhands]

(02-01-2019, 03:53 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There are just as many undocumented immigrantys working under false social security numbers paying FICA that they will never be able to collect.

So if we are just going to use "make believe" numbers I am going to say it all evens out.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/amp/

At what point do you quit making ridiculous claims?

[Stonyhands]

(02-01-2019, 03:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump never offered amnesty.  He offered three year temporary protection.

Since Trump was theone that ended DACA he is offering less than he took away in ther first place.  

DACA was unconstitutional and was only ever supposed to be temporary until Congress could pull their heads out of their asses and fix the country’s immigration problem.

Here’s an interesting read for you:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/articles-amp/723056/obamas-original-sin-daca

[treee]

(02-01-2019, 04:08 AM)Stonyhands Wrote: DACA was unconstitutional and was only ever supposed to be temporary until Congress could pull their heads out of their asses and fix the country’s immigration problem.  

Here’s an interesting read for you:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theweek.com/articles-amp/723056/obamas-original-sin-daca

What part of the constitution does it conflict?

[Au165]

(02-01-2019, 07:35 AM)treee Wrote: What part of the constitution does it conflict?

You know the one that says "this nation was founded by natural citizens who have been here since the dawn of time and we are going to keep it that way!"

[GMDino]

(02-01-2019, 03:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Trump never offered amnesty.  He offered three year temporary protection.

Since Trump was theone that ended DACA he is offering less than he took away in ther first place.  

Add to that that the SC won't hear the case until next year and the program is still running as usual for another 12 months or so anyway.

He just substituted 800,000 hostages (federal workers) for 3 million (dreamers).

He'll probably wanna throw a parade for himself just for offering it. 

[CJD]

(02-01-2019, 02:30 AM)Stonyhands Wrote: Its hard to respond to so many garbage arguments.  But it’s hilarious to read how so many of you are now border security experts just regurgitating everything they’ve learned from MSM.  The wall isn’t a complete end all solution for illegal immigration.  It’s never claimed to be.  For years there’s been bi-partisan support for a wall but no follow through just as there’s never been follow through on immigration reform that would pave a quicker and easier path for US citizenship.  What’s the issue now?

The left just cannot handle this president fulfilling a campaign promise such as building the wall.  It would be too damaging to the 2020 elections.  Pelosi and the left show that DACA recipient’s are only political pawns as Trump’s willing, despite taking a lot of flak from the right, to compromise on amnesty, for funding for the wall and immigration reform, yet they will not compromise at all.  Again this would be too damaging politically for the left.

The Right controls the Senate and the Presidency. They did control the House until last November.

The left is not the thing preventing Trump from fulfilling his campaign promise. The entire government is.

[GMDino]

(02-01-2019, 10:41 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The Right controls the Senate and the Presidency. They did control the House until last November.

The left is not the thing preventing Trump from fulfilling his campaign promise. The entire government is.

I'd add that it is hard to know what was a "campaign promise", what was a "talking point" and what was just "shooting from the hip".

Recent stories have pointed out that "talk about the wall" was a shorthand that Trump's handlers used to remind him to talk about immigration.  It got big cheers so the narcissist that he is he started relying on it.

Anyway...campaign promises:

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/



Details at the link.

[Benton]

(02-01-2019, 10:41 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: The Right controls the Senate and the Presidency. They did control the House until last November.

The left is not the thing preventing Trump from fulfilling his campaign promise. The entire government is.

And part of it that irks me about the last shutdown was that it was over a campaign promise. That's a horrible power for the executive branch to be granted based on partisanship 

Build my wall or you don't get paid.

A POTUS should have issues he wants to come to fruition, but shouldn't have the authority to just make it happen. That defeats the whole separation of powers premise.

[CJD]

(02-01-2019, 11:08 AM)Benton Wrote: And part of it that irks me about the last shutdown was that it was over a campaign promise. That's a horrible power for the executive branch to be granted based on partisanship 

Build my wall or you don't get paid.

A POTUS should have issues he wants to come to fruition, but shouldn't have the authority to just make it happen. That defeats the whole separation of powers premise.

And, in fairness to Republicans, Obama did it too. Abusing the threat of a government shutdown to get what you want has happened in 5 of the last 6 presidencies, two of which were Democratic Presidents. Granted, the shutdowns during H.W.'s and Reagan's presidencies each lasted 3 days or less.

The one president who never shut down the government was actually George W. Bush.

[GMDino]

(02-01-2019, 11:08 AM)Benton Wrote: And part of it that irks me about the last shutdown was that it was over a campaign promise. That's a horrible power for the executive branch to be granted based on partisanship 

Build my wall or you don't get paid.

A POTUS should have issues he wants to come to fruition, but shouldn't have the authority to just make it happen. That defeats the whole separation of powers premise.

Which is why it was so laughable that he ended up signing the CR 35 days later.  This is something both sides should come to a quick agreement on: Fund the government and all the special deals get done after.

[*Nately120*]

BUILD THE WALL!!!

LOCK HER UP!!!!

I LIKE IKE!!!

[Benton]

(02-01-2019, 11:19 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: And, in fairness to Republicans, Obama did it too. Abusing the threat of a government shutdown to get what you want has happened in 5 of the last 6 presidencies, two of which were Democratic Presidents. Granted, the shutdowns during H.W.'s and Reagan's presidencies each lasted 3 days or less.

The one president who never shut down the government was actually George W. Bush.

Good points. 

I think with bush, it was fear on both sides that they would look unamerican if they opposed anything. 

[Belsnickel]

(02-01-2019, 04:00 AM)Stonyhands Wrote: https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2018/03/10/cutting-welfare-to-illegal-aliens-would-pay-for-trumps-wall/amp/

At what point do you quit making ridiculous claims?

At what point do people stop bringing up information from garbage sources?