Congratulations Merica you get a shut down for the holidays.
- Thread starter HerdBuckeye
- Start date
Government shutdown = democrat scare tactic.
First, the government doesn't shut down essential services.
Second, spending bills have already been passed that cover 74% of discretionary spending through the end of the fiscal year.
Combine those two facts and about 95% of government will be business as usual. That's why both sides don't mind playing hardball at this point.
Edit because I was slightly off. It's 92%, not 95%.
https://www.freedomworks.org/conten...nt-already-funded-through-current-fiscal-year
First, the government doesn't shut down essential services.
Second, spending bills have already been passed that cover 74% of discretionary spending through the end of the fiscal year.
Combine those two facts and about 95% of government will be business as usual. That's why both sides don't mind playing hardball at this point.
Edit because I was slightly off. It's 92%, not 95%.
https://www.freedomworks.org/conten...nt-already-funded-through-current-fiscal-year
No worries. Everyone on here is familiar with your math struggles, so nobody starts putting faith into your numbers until at least your fourth edit.
Solid, substantive, reply. Ignore the fact that I was fairly accurate just off my general knowledge of the subject, something the OP has no level of based on his screaming of "government shut down". My guess is he had no idea such a relatively small percentage of government expenditures are discretionary, and that a relatively small percentage of that had not already been approved through the 2019 fiscal year.
It was humor. Unfortunately, it was also accurate based on your many previous attempts with math on here.
Wait: You're telling me that the "PARTIAL government shutdown" means some parts of the government still proceed as usual? And that the government fiscal year, which we are basically already two months into, already has some of the budget approved?
Who exactly pays you to consult them with such brilliance?
And that's really not the point of his (or anyone who mocks cheeto for it) post. cheeto, big-mouth during the Obama shutdown, commented extensively on poor leadership, etc. of Obama due to the shutdown while his party didn't have complete control of Congress. Yet here we are under the deplorable one, whose party has complete control, and a shutdown has started.
Yep. Here's how I'd handle this shut down as a democrat. Since trump owned the shutdown out of his own mouth on national TV, I'd sit beside the fire, drink my coffee and punch, compromise nothing, and wait until Jan 3.
Does it bother you that he is man enough to own his decisions? I find it refreshing.
“If we don’t get what we want, one way or the other, whether it’s through you, through military, through anything you want to call, I will shut down the government.”
“I am proud to shut down the government for border security.… I will take the mantle.”
“I will be the one to shut it down.”
“If the Dems vote no, there will be a shutdown that will last for a very long time.”
“I am proud to shut down the government for border security.… I will take the mantle.”
“I will be the one to shut it down.”
“If the Dems vote no, there will be a shutdown that will last for a very long time.”
You’ve been calling the kettle black an awful lot lately, but calling someone out for self-correcting a math error when you can’t even get 5th grade math accurate half the time might just take the cake.
You continue to make that comment but have you to show even a single instance where I messed up math, let alone 5th grade math.
Hell, if I do anything that could even be remotely argued is an error, the morons on here are like piranhas. Yet you’re the only one who claims I have made math errors, let alone 5th grade math errors, multiple times.
Why do you morons not understand that if you make accusations, especially ones that should be very easy to prove, you should have some sort of support to provide. Yet you never have. Same thing with your horrible attempt in the other thread. .
who in the hell drinks coffee and punch at the same time? no wonder you're fukt in the head.
Own it? You’re a ****ing idiot. Just last week he said he “would take the mantle,” he “wouldn’t blame Chuck,” and he would “be very proud to shut down the government.” Now he is blaming democrats.
Those Republicans sure can govern. They control the House, the Senate and the WH and they had three government shutdowns this (calendar) year.
Congratulations! Still living up to your title of dumbest poster on the board.
Oh yehh, Mr I am going to kick some guy's ass in a green jacket. Guy was probably going who is this weirdo taking my picture. Fruit Loop.
Some of us don't care if it shuts down for a bit.
I have no reason to doubt you'd find it refreshing that a man says one thing and does another.
The shutdown sucks, but let's not pretend the Dems are above doing the exact same thing. They are all full of sh*t, but they do things like this because it doesn't personally impact them.
The shut down would have been totally prevented had cheetos not demanded 5 billion for the wall. A wall that the majority of Americans do not want, a wall that will do little to stem illegal immigration. cheetos did this after claiming ownership of the shutdown, and when the dems are holding the cards by having to wait a mere 2 weeks until they take control of the House. cheetos is absolutely unfit for office and.....stupid.
Harvard review of countries with walls says they along with other measures work effectively in curbing illegal immigration and smuggling. Not sure why you keep saying they don’t work unless your saying a wall alone won’t work. Which is not the plan.
Walls of Separation
An Analysis of Three 'Successful' Border Walls
BY ESTEBAN FLORES
July 27, 2017
In November of 1989, the Socialist Unity Party, the Communist leaders of the East German state, announced that citizens of East Berlin were free to cross the border into the West, and the wall that had divided Berlin came crumbling to the ground. To many observers, this action symbolized the dawn of a new period of globalization, migration, and interconnection of nations—the world could now be united in an era of peace.
In reality, more walls have gone up since the event than ever before.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the number of border walls between nations has more than quadrupled. According to Elisabeth Valet, a researcher at the University of Quebec, there are more than 65 walls currently standing or under construction. Unlike the Berlin Wall, which was meant to keep people in, most of these walls were built to keep people out by deterring illegal immigration, stopping the flow of contraband, or protecting citizens from crimes. While many were shocked by US President Donald Trump’s plans to build a border wall, a wall is by no means uncommon among both developing and developed nations. Countries such as Hungary, Britain, Bulgaria, Norway, Turkey, and Myanmar have all built walls on their borders, raising the question: would a wall along the US-Mexico border be successful?
According to Trump, such a border wall would be instrumental in stopping illegal immigration and thwarting drug cartels—a claim that has proven contentious among many experts. This article will examine three border walls in Israel, Egypt, and Spain that were erected for those same purposes; it will then show that a US-Mexico border wall could be effective, but not at the cost of its high price tag.
Israel’s Southern Immigration Border
While Israel’s border wall along the Gaza Strip often receives much media attention, its southern border wall, which was constructed to stop the flow of African immigrants from places like Eritrea and Sudan, has been relatively ignored by the media. Construction on the wall began in 2010 and finished in 2013, costing US$400 million for the relatively small 150-mile wall (the US-Mexico border wall, for comparison, would be at least 1300 miles long). The wall—which is more of a fence—is made of steel and barbed wire, and stands surrounded by unending hills of desert sand and brush. The sight is broken only by the occasional guard tower jutting above the wall.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has praised Trump’s idea for a wall as a “great idea” and a “great success,” claiming on Twitter that his own wall “has stopped all illegal immigration.” While Israel’s wall has definitely not stopped all illegal immigration, it has assisted in cutting it down significantly. According to statistics published by Israel’s Ministry of the Interior, 17,000 African immigrants entered the state illegally in 2011. However, in 2013, after the completion of the wall, the number fell to a mere 43.
While there is a clear correlation between the construction of the wall and the decrease in immigration, experts claim that the border wall has only partially contributed to the decrease, and that other measures enacted by the Israeli government have also been of immense importance. Rather than merely focusing on making it harder for immigrants to enter the country, Israel has also made it less desirable for immigrants that make it across the wall to stay and work. For example, Israel has passed two laws targeting immigrants— one prohibiting immigrants from transferring money out of the country and another forcing employers to deposit 20 percent of an immigrant employee’s salary into a bank account which can only be withdrawn upon exit of the country.
Laws such as these have made it harder for immigrants to send money back to their families in their countries of origin, which in some cases had been used to pay for the smuggling of their families into Israel. These measures, when combined with the increased difficulty of entering Israel, have contributed greatly to the reduction of immigration.
Though the wall in Israel has been successful, would a wall on the US-Mexico border prove just as effective in achieving its intended goal? While the wall could be successful, there are many obstacles that the United States would face that Israel did not. First of all, the Israeli border wall was surrounded by a vast desert, while the terrain surrounding the US wall would vary. The desert provides a natural barrier to immigration, as shown by the fact that most immigration to Israel only occurred on days when the weather was optimal for desert crossing. In addition, human smugglers in Mexico have proven themselves very capable at bypassing existing barriers along the US-Mexico border, often using power tools to cut through and infiltrate the existing US fence be fore US Border Patrol units can respond. This would not be a problem if the US-Mexico wall were as small as the Israeli wall, which would make it easier to patrol and respond to security breaches. The proposed US wall, however, would be almost ten times as long, making patrolling difficult. Finally, President Trump has not announced any policies similar to those of Israel that would limit the desirability of immigration to the United States, limiting the effectiveness of the wall.
Only if the United States were to vastly increase the size of its Border Patrol and draft immigration policies similar to those adopted by Israel could the border wall potentially be effective. However, the cost of the increase in Border Patrol and potential economic losses due to immigration employment policies may prove to be undesirable for the United States in the long run; the tradeoff may be too great.
Egypt’s Steel Barrier with Gaza
Moving west of Israel to the other side of the Gaza Strip, Egypt has also erected a massive steel barricade with Gaza. Unlike the Israeli wall, which is more of a fence, the Egyptian barrier is definitely a wall; the barrier is made of bombproof, super strength steel which cannot be cut or melted, and extends an astounding 20 meters underground. In fact, the Egyptian wall is one of the few that can be delineated from space.
While the Israeli wall was built to impede immigration, the Egyptian wall was built to stop the smuggling of contraband into Egypt, and to stop the smuggling of weapons, explosives, and goods that are unattainable domestically to the Palestinians. Since the beginning of the barricade, Hamas smugglers have dug tunnels under the desert into Egypt in order to smuggle the aforementioned items into Gaza. The Egyptian government responded by creating an underground wall to block the tunnels while simultaneously keeping all plans for the wall secret to conceal its construction from Hamas. As a result, the wall has cut off hundreds of tunnels closer to the surface and forced the Palestinians to dig deeper and deeper. During construction of the wall, many underground tunnels collapsed, sometimes killing or trapping smugglers.
The Egyptian wall has not stopped all smuggling completely, but it has forced Hamas to go to greater length in order to move goods. Proponents of the US-Mexico wall have claimed that it would help to fight drug smuggling by the Mexican cartels, and the Egyptian wall has certainly shown some success in that respect. In addition, Mexican cartels have also created networks of tunnels that they use for smuggling across the border in a manner similar to Hamas. The Trump administration, however, has not released plans for the proposed wall to extend underground—a flaw which would limit the success of the wall and keep it from emulating that of Egypt. However, the replacement of the current steel US fence with a much more durable and harder to compromise concrete wall may help stop smugglers from breaching the walls with power tools. Regardless, the cartels will still have many methods of smuggling drugs into the United States, including by boats in the Gulf of Mexico.
If the United States wanted to increase the efficacy of the wall, it would have to extend the wall underground, which would greatly increase the already exorbitant cost of constructing the wall—potentially doubling or tripling the estimated US$10 billion expense. This may prove too costly. Without this expense, however, the net reduction in drug smuggling would be limited
Walls of Separation
An Analysis of Three 'Successful' Border Walls
BY ESTEBAN FLORES
July 27, 2017
In November of 1989, the Socialist Unity Party, the Communist leaders of the East German state, announced that citizens of East Berlin were free to cross the border into the West, and the wall that had divided Berlin came crumbling to the ground. To many observers, this action symbolized the dawn of a new period of globalization, migration, and interconnection of nations—the world could now be united in an era of peace.
In reality, more walls have gone up since the event than ever before.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the number of border walls between nations has more than quadrupled. According to Elisabeth Valet, a researcher at the University of Quebec, there are more than 65 walls currently standing or under construction. Unlike the Berlin Wall, which was meant to keep people in, most of these walls were built to keep people out by deterring illegal immigration, stopping the flow of contraband, or protecting citizens from crimes. While many were shocked by US President Donald Trump’s plans to build a border wall, a wall is by no means uncommon among both developing and developed nations. Countries such as Hungary, Britain, Bulgaria, Norway, Turkey, and Myanmar have all built walls on their borders, raising the question: would a wall along the US-Mexico border be successful?
According to Trump, such a border wall would be instrumental in stopping illegal immigration and thwarting drug cartels—a claim that has proven contentious among many experts. This article will examine three border walls in Israel, Egypt, and Spain that were erected for those same purposes; it will then show that a US-Mexico border wall could be effective, but not at the cost of its high price tag.
Israel’s Southern Immigration Border
While Israel’s border wall along the Gaza Strip often receives much media attention, its southern border wall, which was constructed to stop the flow of African immigrants from places like Eritrea and Sudan, has been relatively ignored by the media. Construction on the wall began in 2010 and finished in 2013, costing US$400 million for the relatively small 150-mile wall (the US-Mexico border wall, for comparison, would be at least 1300 miles long). The wall—which is more of a fence—is made of steel and barbed wire, and stands surrounded by unending hills of desert sand and brush. The sight is broken only by the occasional guard tower jutting above the wall.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has praised Trump’s idea for a wall as a “great idea” and a “great success,” claiming on Twitter that his own wall “has stopped all illegal immigration.” While Israel’s wall has definitely not stopped all illegal immigration, it has assisted in cutting it down significantly. According to statistics published by Israel’s Ministry of the Interior, 17,000 African immigrants entered the state illegally in 2011. However, in 2013, after the completion of the wall, the number fell to a mere 43.
While there is a clear correlation between the construction of the wall and the decrease in immigration, experts claim that the border wall has only partially contributed to the decrease, and that other measures enacted by the Israeli government have also been of immense importance. Rather than merely focusing on making it harder for immigrants to enter the country, Israel has also made it less desirable for immigrants that make it across the wall to stay and work. For example, Israel has passed two laws targeting immigrants— one prohibiting immigrants from transferring money out of the country and another forcing employers to deposit 20 percent of an immigrant employee’s salary into a bank account which can only be withdrawn upon exit of the country.
Laws such as these have made it harder for immigrants to send money back to their families in their countries of origin, which in some cases had been used to pay for the smuggling of their families into Israel. These measures, when combined with the increased difficulty of entering Israel, have contributed greatly to the reduction of immigration.
Though the wall in Israel has been successful, would a wall on the US-Mexico border prove just as effective in achieving its intended goal? While the wall could be successful, there are many obstacles that the United States would face that Israel did not. First of all, the Israeli border wall was surrounded by a vast desert, while the terrain surrounding the US wall would vary. The desert provides a natural barrier to immigration, as shown by the fact that most immigration to Israel only occurred on days when the weather was optimal for desert crossing. In addition, human smugglers in Mexico have proven themselves very capable at bypassing existing barriers along the US-Mexico border, often using power tools to cut through and infiltrate the existing US fence be fore US Border Patrol units can respond. This would not be a problem if the US-Mexico wall were as small as the Israeli wall, which would make it easier to patrol and respond to security breaches. The proposed US wall, however, would be almost ten times as long, making patrolling difficult. Finally, President Trump has not announced any policies similar to those of Israel that would limit the desirability of immigration to the United States, limiting the effectiveness of the wall.
Only if the United States were to vastly increase the size of its Border Patrol and draft immigration policies similar to those adopted by Israel could the border wall potentially be effective. However, the cost of the increase in Border Patrol and potential economic losses due to immigration employment policies may prove to be undesirable for the United States in the long run; the tradeoff may be too great.
Egypt’s Steel Barrier with Gaza
Moving west of Israel to the other side of the Gaza Strip, Egypt has also erected a massive steel barricade with Gaza. Unlike the Israeli wall, which is more of a fence, the Egyptian barrier is definitely a wall; the barrier is made of bombproof, super strength steel which cannot be cut or melted, and extends an astounding 20 meters underground. In fact, the Egyptian wall is one of the few that can be delineated from space.
While the Israeli wall was built to impede immigration, the Egyptian wall was built to stop the smuggling of contraband into Egypt, and to stop the smuggling of weapons, explosives, and goods that are unattainable domestically to the Palestinians. Since the beginning of the barricade, Hamas smugglers have dug tunnels under the desert into Egypt in order to smuggle the aforementioned items into Gaza. The Egyptian government responded by creating an underground wall to block the tunnels while simultaneously keeping all plans for the wall secret to conceal its construction from Hamas. As a result, the wall has cut off hundreds of tunnels closer to the surface and forced the Palestinians to dig deeper and deeper. During construction of the wall, many underground tunnels collapsed, sometimes killing or trapping smugglers.
The Egyptian wall has not stopped all smuggling completely, but it has forced Hamas to go to greater length in order to move goods. Proponents of the US-Mexico wall have claimed that it would help to fight drug smuggling by the Mexican cartels, and the Egyptian wall has certainly shown some success in that respect. In addition, Mexican cartels have also created networks of tunnels that they use for smuggling across the border in a manner similar to Hamas. The Trump administration, however, has not released plans for the proposed wall to extend underground—a flaw which would limit the success of the wall and keep it from emulating that of Egypt. However, the replacement of the current steel US fence with a much more durable and harder to compromise concrete wall may help stop smugglers from breaching the walls with power tools. Regardless, the cartels will still have many methods of smuggling drugs into the United States, including by boats in the Gulf of Mexico.
If the United States wanted to increase the efficacy of the wall, it would have to extend the wall underground, which would greatly increase the already exorbitant cost of constructing the wall—potentially doubling or tripling the estimated US$10 billion expense. This may prove too costly. Without this expense, however, the net reduction in drug smuggling would be limited
Spain’s Fence with Africa
Moving even farther west from Egypt, one runs into the border fence of Spain—a 7-mile steel structure that blocks immigration from Morocco. In 2014, 2,100 immigrants successfully crossed from Morocco into Spain, but the fence reduced this number substantially to approximately 100 in 2015. More importantly, however, the fence has greatly discouraged people from even attempting to illegally cross into Spain. In 2014, approximately 19,000 people attempted to cross into Spain. That number diminished to approximately 3,700 in 2015. It appears that the greatest role the fence has played is in convincing immigrants not to even attempt to enter Spain, which has greatly reduced illegal immigration rates.
When the fence was first built, pictures were widely circulated in the media of immigrants sitting on top of the fence, and helicopters were often found patrolling. However, the Spanish government later installed wire mesh and sensors on the wall which made it impossible for people to get a grip on the wall to climb, and which alerted soldiers when someone touched the wall. Now, the wall has faded from the media spotlight, and the leader of a local council has remarked that immigration “isn’t a problem anymore.”
The fence, however, has forced many immigrants to risk their lives swimming around it in the cold waters of the Mediterranean. According to one Red Cross employee, she treats an average of 10 immigrants for hypothermia during warm weather and potentially ten times that during colder weather. This same problem has already surfaced along the US border, where immigrants will often take riskier routes through deserts or mountains in order to avoid the Border Patrol, often putting their lives in great danger.
While a US-Mexico border wall could potentially reduce immigration by discouraging immigrants from attempting to cross in the first place, as happened in Spain, it could also encourage immigrants to seek out riskier immigration routes which could increase crossing fatalities. The United States would have to keep this potential loss of life in mind as they construct the wall, and decide if it is worth the lives of these people.
Moving even farther west from Egypt, one runs into the border fence of Spain—a 7-mile steel structure that blocks immigration from Morocco. In 2014, 2,100 immigrants successfully crossed from Morocco into Spain, but the fence reduced this number substantially to approximately 100 in 2015. More importantly, however, the fence has greatly discouraged people from even attempting to illegally cross into Spain. In 2014, approximately 19,000 people attempted to cross into Spain. That number diminished to approximately 3,700 in 2015. It appears that the greatest role the fence has played is in convincing immigrants not to even attempt to enter Spain, which has greatly reduced illegal immigration rates.
When the fence was first built, pictures were widely circulated in the media of immigrants sitting on top of the fence, and helicopters were often found patrolling. However, the Spanish government later installed wire mesh and sensors on the wall which made it impossible for people to get a grip on the wall to climb, and which alerted soldiers when someone touched the wall. Now, the wall has faded from the media spotlight, and the leader of a local council has remarked that immigration “isn’t a problem anymore.”
The fence, however, has forced many immigrants to risk their lives swimming around it in the cold waters of the Mediterranean. According to one Red Cross employee, she treats an average of 10 immigrants for hypothermia during warm weather and potentially ten times that during colder weather. This same problem has already surfaced along the US border, where immigrants will often take riskier routes through deserts or mountains in order to avoid the Border Patrol, often putting their lives in great danger.
While a US-Mexico border wall could potentially reduce immigration by discouraging immigrants from attempting to cross in the first place, as happened in Spain, it could also encourage immigrants to seek out riskier immigration routes which could increase crossing fatalities. The United States would have to keep this potential loss of life in mind as they construct the wall, and decide if it is worth the lives of these people.
Don't get me wrong, this one is completely on Trump. I'm just saying Dems have done the same thing in the past, and will likely do so again. Same as Republicans.
So small walls work....we already have those.
I do not know anyone rational that says we should have zero control at the border. But I also do not know anyone rational that thinks a 1300 mile wall is fiscally smart.
What we know is that illegal immigration is costing much more than $5 billion annually. How much more is all over the place.
What’s not fiscally smart is what’s been done up to this point.
What’s not fiscally smart is what’s been done up to this point.
heatlh care ALONE is at least $1.1 billion to the US taxpayer
A RAND study concluded that the total federal cost of providing medical expenses for the 78% illegal immigrants without health insurance coverage was $1.1 billion, with immigrants paying $321 million of health care costs out-of-pocket.
Throw in cost to the education system, legal system, HUD, welfare, and cost pushed back to the states you have a very, very large number.
NOT TO MENTION, and YOU THINK THIS WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO DEMOCRATS.
IT DRIVES WAGES DOWN!!!!
Undocumented workers paid 12 BILLION into social sec but will not receive any benefits,
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/09/undocumented-immigrants-and-taxes/499604/
Cool. Subtacting your 1 billion of health-care from my 12 billion sox sec leaves a net positive for America of 11 billion.
You are nuts. Take out taxes they are not paying and money they funnel out if ththe country. Take out the costs previously mentioned and the effect on wages.
You are condoning illegal activities and the sovereignty of our nation
Nope. Your thinking with the emotion of fear again. You're not figuring in the effect on the economy of the money immigrants spend in the u s economy and the lower cost of food for the American citizens.
You're condoning we cut off our nose to spite our face.
Ronald Reagan had a very fair look at immigration issues. It had the reasonable insistence that immigrants come here legally while maintaining the compassion the situation needs. It sought to build an alliance with other nations in resolving the issue, but most of all he had an understanding that immigration formed the very foundation of this country. From his statement on the US Immigration and Refugee Policy...
Our nation is a nation of immigrants. More than any other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands. No free and prosperous nation can by itself accommodate all those who seek a better life or flee persecution. We must share this responsibility with other countries. […]
• We shall continue America's tradition as a land that welcomes peoples from other countries. We shall also, with other countries, continue to share in the responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression.
• At the same time, we must ensure adequate legal authority to establish control over immigration: to enable us, when sudden influxes of foreigners occur, to decide to whom we grant the status of refugee or asylee; to improve our border control; to expedite (consistent with fair procedures and our Constitution) return of those coming here illegally; to strengthen enforcement of our fair labor standards and laws; and to penalize those who would knowingly encourage violation of our laws. The steps we take to further these objectives, however, must also be consistent with our values of individual privacy and freedom. […]
• We shall strive to distribute fairly, among the various localities of this country, the impacts of our national immigration and refugee policy[.] […]
• We shall seek new ways to integrate refugees into our society without nurturing their dependence on welfare.
• Finally, we recognize that immigration and refugee problems require international solutions. We will seek greater international cooperation in the resettlement of refugees and, in the Caribbean Basin, international cooperation to assist accelerated economic development to reduce motivations for illegal immigration.
Immigration and refugee policy is an important part of our past and fundamental to our national interest. With the help of the Congress and the American people, we will work towards a new and realistic immigration policy, a policy that will be fair to our own citizens while it opens the door of opportunity for those who seek a new life in America.
This is sensible. This is what conservative policy used to be. Under our present administration our president is breeding hatred with incendiary rhetoric that is promoting a hatefulness among his base. This isn’t leadership. This is divisive politics that seeks more to make this an issue of who wins than to be conciliatory while resolving the issue. Great leaders can approach issues fundamental to defining our country without the necessity of dividing the nation into winners and losers.
Our nation is a nation of immigrants. More than any other country, our strength comes from our own immigrant heritage and our capacity to welcome those from other lands. No free and prosperous nation can by itself accommodate all those who seek a better life or flee persecution. We must share this responsibility with other countries. […]
• We shall continue America's tradition as a land that welcomes peoples from other countries. We shall also, with other countries, continue to share in the responsibility of welcoming and resettling those who flee oppression.
• At the same time, we must ensure adequate legal authority to establish control over immigration: to enable us, when sudden influxes of foreigners occur, to decide to whom we grant the status of refugee or asylee; to improve our border control; to expedite (consistent with fair procedures and our Constitution) return of those coming here illegally; to strengthen enforcement of our fair labor standards and laws; and to penalize those who would knowingly encourage violation of our laws. The steps we take to further these objectives, however, must also be consistent with our values of individual privacy and freedom. […]
• We shall strive to distribute fairly, among the various localities of this country, the impacts of our national immigration and refugee policy[.] […]
• We shall seek new ways to integrate refugees into our society without nurturing their dependence on welfare.
• Finally, we recognize that immigration and refugee problems require international solutions. We will seek greater international cooperation in the resettlement of refugees and, in the Caribbean Basin, international cooperation to assist accelerated economic development to reduce motivations for illegal immigration.
Immigration and refugee policy is an important part of our past and fundamental to our national interest. With the help of the Congress and the American people, we will work towards a new and realistic immigration policy, a policy that will be fair to our own citizens while it opens the door of opportunity for those who seek a new life in America.
This is sensible. This is what conservative policy used to be. Under our present administration our president is breeding hatred with incendiary rhetoric that is promoting a hatefulness among his base. This isn’t leadership. This is divisive politics that seeks more to make this an issue of who wins than to be conciliatory while resolving the issue. Great leaders can approach issues fundamental to defining our country without the necessity of dividing the nation into winners and losers.
“I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That’s how I saw it, and see it still.”
-Ronal Reagan
“We have people coming into the country or trying to come in, we're stopping a lot of them, but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals."
-Donald Trump
“They didn’t ask what this country could do for them, but what they could do to make this refuge the greatest home of freedom in history. They brought with them courage and the values of family, work and freedom. Let us pledge to each other that we can make America great again.”
-Ronald Reagan
“Why do we want all these people from 'shithole countries' coming here?"
-Donald Trump
-Ronal Reagan
“We have people coming into the country or trying to come in, we're stopping a lot of them, but we're taking people out of the country. You wouldn't believe how bad these people are. These aren't people. These are animals."
-Donald Trump
“They didn’t ask what this country could do for them, but what they could do to make this refuge the greatest home of freedom in history. They brought with them courage and the values of family, work and freedom. Let us pledge to each other that we can make America great again.”
-Ronald Reagan
“Why do we want all these people from 'shithole countries' coming here?"
-Donald Trump
Up to this point for how long? We know that in 2005 roughly a third of illegals had been here for 10 years. Now it is two-thirds. One can infer from this that the issue is not a surge of current crossings that a wall would solve (and I can present hard numbers to back that up, based on border apprehensions, which have dropped by roughly two-thirds since the early 90s), but a more permanent number who have long been here. Would it not make more sense economically to promote a path to citizenship for these folks? That way we can fully tax their labor and negate the downward pressure on wages...which mainly affects high school dropouts anyways.
If they were not hired here, they would not run, walk, skip, crawl, swim, tunnel, launch themselves across the border.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
saip Mike Green invited to NFL combine. I did not see anyone else
- Latest: raleighherdfan
-
