Trump’s Immigration Address And Democratic Response: Live

[Deletedaccount1]

So what are the issues with the current strategy for border security? Why does it belong on the list of top 10 issues our nation solves, let alone the #1 slot?

Look at that, chalk up another Democrat with no plan.

[cubby]

No it isn't. Every bill on the hill is written by wonks hired by each party, not by actual elected officials. The fact that you don't want to tell me what these sensible policies are that you keep talking about suggests you don't actually know yourself.

Again, what is the current border policy, and how is it not working? You have yet to answer that question. I'm happy to come up with ideas, but we need to start from an agreed place - that being the current border policy.

Look - you reached some interesting common ground yesterday. You and I agreed that if we could "close the border" we could allow all illegal immigrants currently in the United States to apply for citizenship.

That is HUGE - and I'm not being sarcastic.

So let's address the border policy.

- - - Updated - - -

You replied to my question with a question. That's not fair. Writing up a quick manifesto on your views on such a broad topic should be easy but no one wants to do it for some reason.

How can we write a border policy if we don't already know what it is. I certainly don't know it. Do you? Do we even have a "border policy"? I'm not trying to bait you. I'm looking for a real solution.

[Deletedaccount1]

How about helping to solve the problems that make those people flee in the first place. You know, actually being a good christian for once and help thy neighbours.

And how about not adding more onto the pile of shit by, for example, not ignoring every climate scientist. You really think you have a crisis at your border? Thats nothing compared to what is coming in a couple of years.

They flee poverty and danger in Central America. I don't know about can be done about from America's position except throwing money at a problem (which we already do with little effect). That's just counting foreign aid, not counting the billions in remittances sent back from Mexicans in the US.

[cubby]

They flee poverty and danger in Central America. I don't know about can be done about from America's position except throwing money at a problem (which we already do with little effect). That's just counting foreign aid, not counting the billions in remittances sent back from Mexicans in the US.

I don't think we can do much to solve the problems that people face in other countries, other than what you suggested. Foreign aid is about all we can do IIRC.

[Edge-]

No it isn't. Every bill on the hill is written by wonks hired by each party, not by actual elected officials. The fact that you don't want to tell me what these sensible policies are that you keep talking about suggests you don't actually know yourself.

I have opinions, but my opinions aren't authoritative as I'm not discussing with experts and only catching pieces of information from them.

What would it entail?

Comprehensive immigration reform of the whole system to streamline the process, cutting down on the amount of time it takes and making it easier to get into and through the system. This includes investments in immigration judges in the short-term to aggressively work through the multi-year backlog on court dates. This includes working with Mexico in particular to figure out ways to quickly process migrants that cross through that country to come to the US, as Mexico can assist with early processing so that there is less for US agents to do.

Sensible border security - Fencing and vehicle barriers at key areas, but extensive use of electronic monitoring and other technology based solutions that can provide far more accurate and expansive information about border actively while also allowing agents to respond more quickly to issues.

Addressing the current situation of illegal immigrants in the US - most are Visa overstays, and unfortunately mass deportation isn't a realistic solution. This would include pathways to citizenship for those that haven't violated additional laws in the US in tandem with stricter penalties for additional illegal immigration. This has to be done in tandem with improvements to the immigration and asylum process to ensure that we don't see a return to massive backlogs and the view that illegally immigrating is the easiest way to enter the US. Those with violent criminal histories or drug-related criminal histories absolutely should be deported.

There's more, but it's hardly as if there aren't suggestions and solutions that can increase border security (which again, is largely a fucking red herring as terrorists don't cross that border and there no greater security risk at the southern border today than there was years ago. Numbers of illegal crossings are half of what they were a few decades ago) while trying to find realistic solutions to the structural issues that have caused the current situation to begin with.

But again, attempts to do just this have been made. I already linked you the Gang of Eight bill that passed the Senate with bipartisan support, only to be stonewalled by Boehner and Republicans in the House. The continued illegal immigration issues are on the GOP. There have been credible attempts at solutions, and Republicans have blown them up again and again.

And bonus points because it's relevant: The overwhelming majority of drugs crossing the boarder come through legal points of entry, not the middle of the desert where there isn't a wall. "THE WALL" alone will have little to no impact on that.

They flee poverty and danger in Central America. I don't know about can be done about from America's position except throwing money at a problem (which we already do with little effect). That's just counting foreign aid, not counting the billions in remittances sent back from Mexicans in the US.

Remember, the US is directly responsible for much of the instability in central/southern America. We meddled heavily in the politics of many of these nations for our own benefit, causing instability which has led to the current situation. In part, it's also our mess, and we should be responsible for helping fix it.

[Deletedaccount1]

How can we write a border policy if we don't already know what it is. I certainly don't know it. Do you? Do we even have a "border policy"? I'm not trying to bait you. I'm looking for a real solution.

The current policy very generally seems like this:

It ranges from difficult to relatively easy to get through the border into the US depending on how and where you try to go through. Some areas are well guarded but most are not. People also get smuggled in in various other ways. Some get caught, most do not. Once you get in and away from the border, you are not likely to be deported. If you overstay your visa, you are not likely to be deported. If you are hired by an American company, you are still not likely to be deported.

If you have kids in the US or brought your kids with you, you just lowered your chances of being deported even more because they either get birthright citizenship or deferred action. Your chances of deportation really only seem to go up exponentially if you commit a felony.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think we can do much to solve the problems that people face in other countries, other than what you suggested. Foreign aid is about all we can do IIRC.

These countries need to fix themselves. Which some of them might do to a degree. Mexico seems to have a bright future economically.

[Lothar from accounting]

Remember, the US is directly responsible for much of the instability in central/southern America. We meddled heavily in the politics of many of these nations for our own benefit, causing instability which has led to the current situation. In part, it's also our mess, and we should be responsible for helping fix it.

Would you consider the war on drugs to be included in the political meddling? Personally I think it's worth separate mention for giving rise to the cartels that contribute heavily to the instability/danger in a manner that would, likely, still exist even without our other meddling.

[cubby]

The current policy very generally seems like this:

It ranges from difficult to relatively easy to get through the border into the US depending on how and where you try to go through. Some areas are well guarded but most are not. People also get smuggled in in various other ways. Some get caught, most do not. Once you get in and away from the border, you are not likely to be deported. If you overstay your visa, you are not likely to be deported. If you are hired by an American company, you are still not likely to be deported.

If you have kids in the US or brought your kids with you, you just lowered your chances of being deported even more because they either get birthright citizenship or deferred action. Your chances of deportation really only seem to go up exponentially if you commit a felony.

Ok. What you are describing are very accurate problems with our immigration overall. And I generally agree with your evaluation about what happens to people if they make it across the border. And we should definitely address those issues.

But that isn't border policy.

It was my understanding that Trump's own people have said that southern illegal crossings are at an all time low (I'm linking a google search so you can choose your own media source - I can put in specific links if you'd like, just tell me and I will). So if illegal crossings are at a record low - what is the current problem with our border policy?

These countries need to fix themselves. Which some of them might do to a degree. Mexico seems to have a bright future economically.

I didn't know that about Mexico. Interesting.

[Zaktar]

Look at that, chalk up another Democrat with no plan.

That's the best retort you have? It's not an actual problem, it's a fake problem conjured to manipulate people like yourself. The reason you're not providing evidence is because there isn't any.

[Deletedaccount1]

I have opinions, but my opinions aren't authoritative as I'm not discussing with experts and only catching pieces of information from them.

What would it entail?

Comprehensive immigration reform of the whole system to streamline the process, cutting down on the amount of time it takes and making it easier to get into and through the system. This includes investments in immigration judges in the short-term to aggressively work through the multi-year backlog on court dates. This includes working with Mexico in particular to figure out ways to quickly process migrants that cross through that country to come to the US, as Mexico can assist with early processing so that there is less for US agents to do.

Sensible border security - Fencing and vehicle barriers at key areas, but extensive use of electronic monitoring and other technology based solutions that can provide far more accurate and expansive information about border actively while also allowing agents to respond more quickly to issues.

Addressing the current situation of illegal immigrants in the US - most are Visa overstays, and unfortunately mass deportation isn't a realistic solution. This would include pathways to citizenship for those that haven't violated additional laws in the US in tandem with stricter penalties for additional illegal immigration. This has to be done in tandem with improvements to the immigration and asylum process to ensure that we don't see a return to massive backlogs and the view that illegally immigrating is the easiest way to enter the US. Those with violent criminal histories or drug-related criminal histories absolutely should be deported.

There's more, but it's hardly as if there aren't suggestions and solutions that can increase border security (which again, is largely a fucking red herring as terrorists don't cross that border and there no greater security risk at the southern border today than there was years ago. Numbers of illegal crossings are half of what they were a few decades ago) while trying to find realistic solutions to the structural issues that have caused the current situation to begin with.

But again, attempts to do just this have been made. I already linked you the Gang of Eight bill that passed the Senate with bipartisan support, only to be stonewalled by Boehner and Republicans in the House. The continued illegal immigration issues are on the GOP. There have been credible attempts at solutions, and Republicans have blown them up again and again.

And bonus points because it's relevant: The overwhelming majority of drugs crossing the boarder come through legal points of entry, not the middle of the desert where there isn't a wall. "THE WALL" alone will have little to no impact on that.

Remember, the US is directly responsible for much of the instability in central/southern America. We meddled heavily in the politics of many of these nations for our own benefit, causing instability which has led to the current situation. In part, it's also our mess, and we should be responsible for helping fix it.

I agree with all of this except the parts that I bolded. The Gang of Eight bill had enormous problems. I don't think along with many congressional Republicans among others that the bill would have stopped the flow of illegal immigrants. It was also extremely expensive and bloated with a bunch of junk that was unrelated to immigration because that is an unfortunate side of bipartisanship in the US.

Where drugs come through is neither here nor there. It seems pretty clear that the explicit purpose of the wall is to keep people from coming through, not what they happen to be carrying on their person. Of course, I do support stricter enforcement at legal points of entry but that does seem to be at odds with an expedited legal immigration process at the border to a degree.

The stuff about the US being at fault for the state of those countries is just Chomskyite drivel as far as I'm concerned. You are radically exaggerating the influence of the US. Those countries are not free and they don't have the basis for free market economies so they struggle with poverty and crime. The US meddled in Chile quite heavily but they adopted the right economic policy so now they resemble something closer to first world Western countries than Latin American ones.

[Edge-]

Would you consider the war on drugs to be included in the political meddling? Personally I think it's worth separate mention for giving rise to the cartels that contribute heavily to the instability/danger in a manner that would, likely, still exist even without our other meddling.

The "WAR ON DRUGS" has been an unmitigated disaster, and IIRC just about all the data backs it up. If memory serves, the most effective methods at combating drug addiction and the related issues come from a health care/safety perspective rather than a purely criminal/law enforcement perspective. Things like safe injection sites and needle exchanges have proven to be effective at accomplishing goals like limiting the spread of transmittable diseases, reducing overdose deaths, and helping addicts get the help and services to break addictions along with longer term help to help them keep clean.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with all of this except the parts that I bolded. The Gang of Eight bill had enormous problems. I don't think along with many congressional Republicans among others that problem would have solved the flow of illegal immigrants. It was also extremely expensive and bloated with a bunch of junk that was unrelated to immigration.

It was a bi-partisan bill with bi-partisan support in the Senate. Boehner refused to even bring it up for a vote. That's purely on Boehner and the GOP.

Where drugs come through is neither here nor there.

Considering that's a core part of Trumps justification for the wall, it's absolutely here, there, and everywhere.

It seems pretty clear that the explicit purpose of the wall is to keep people from coming through, not what they happen to be carrying on their person.

Trump disagrees with you, and even then we know that walls alone do little to stop illegal entries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

A report in May 2008 by the Congressional Research Service found "strong indication" that illegal border-crossers had simply found new routes.

...

The same GAO report concluded that "CBP cannot measure the contribution of fencing to border security operations along the southwest border because it has not developed metrics for this assessment."

...

The GAO reported in 2017 that both pedestrian and vehicle barriers have been defeated by various methods, including using ramps to drive vehicles "up and over" vehicle fencing in the sector; scaling, jumping over, or breaching pedestrian fencing; burrowing or tunneling underground; and even using small aircraft.

Remember, Trump things all that "technology stuff" is fluff, rather than a crucial part of any border security infrastructure to ensure that the CBP has immediate and expansive access to information and activity along the border. A wall alone is pointless and hasn't been an effective defensive mechanism for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Of course, I do support stricter enforcement at legal points of entry but that does seem to be at odds with an expedited legal immigration process at the border to a degree.

How do you figure?

The stuff about the US being at fault for the state of those countries is just Chomskyite drivel as far as I'm concerned. You are radically exaggerating the influence of the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._Latin_America

The US has actively meddled in the governments of almost every single central/southern American country over the past 100 years, frequently propping up authoritarian regimes, corrupt governments, and brutal rebel groups.

The US meddled in Chile quite heavily but they adopted the right economic policy so now they resemble something closer to first world Western countries than Latin American ones.

Because one country managed to get through US meddling and is now doing alright doesn't mean that every country is capable of that.

[Deletedaccount1]

Ok. What you are describing are very accurate problems with our immigration overall. And I generally agree with your evaluation about what happens to people if they make it across the border. And we should definitely address those issues.

But that isn't border policy.

It was my understanding that Trump's own people have said that southern illegal crossings are at an all time low (I'm linking a google search so you can choose your own media source - I can put in specific links if you'd like, just tell me and I will). So if illegal crossings are at a record low - what is the current problem with our border policy?

It is lower but it is still high. When people say this, to me it just means we should have dealt with this years ago and shouldn't repeat the same mistakes. Looking at illegals more broadly regardless of how they came in, Trump got into trouble with the media for saying this:

“In the last two years, ICE officers made 266,000 arrests of aliens with criminal records including those charged or convicted of 100,000 assaults, 30,000 sex crimes, and 4,000 violent killings. Over the years, thousands of Americans have been brutally killed by those who illegally entered our country, and thousands more lives will be lost if we don't act right now.”

They accepted those numbers because that is what they are and it is striking. Fencing, a wall, whatever on strategic sections of border is one step of a necessary process for stopping these people from coming into the country and fixing the immigration system as a whole.

Should Trump have done this earlier? Yes. Should he have focused on things besides just constructing a wall on the border? Yes. But $5 billion is not expensive for the federal government and if you take a conservative/libertarian view like I do that the government wastes most of the money it spends than this really seems like a no-brainer.

[cubby]

It is lower but it is still high. When people say this, to me it just means we should have dealt with this years ago and shouldn't repeat the same mistakes. Looking at illegals more broadly regardless of how they came in, Trump got into trouble with the media for saying this:


They accepted those numbers because that is what they are and it is striking. Fencing, a wall, whatever on strategic sections of border is one step of a necessary process for stopping these people from coming into the country and fixing the immigration system as a whole.

Those numbers were wrong, and even Fox news agrees. The crime numbers included entering the country, and reentering, as crimes. That is highly misleading.

Should Trump have done this earlier? Yes. Should he have focused on things besides just constructing a wall on the border? Yes. But $5 billion is not expensive for the federal government and if you take a conservative/libertarian view like I do that the government wastes most of the money it spends than this really seems like a no-brainer.

No, he shouldn't have. The Wall isn't necessary because illegal border crossings are at a historic decline. And we still don't know what the border policy is.

[Edge-]

Should Trump have done this earlier? Yes. Should he have focused on things besides just constructing a wall on the border? Yes. But $5 billion is not expensive for the federal government and if you take a conservative/libertarian view like I do that the government wastes most of the money it spends than this really seems like a no-brainer.

"The government wastes all kinds of money, so what's intentionally wasting another $5B?" (though it's up to $6.7B I believe, as the GOP just tacked on another billion for "humanitarian aid" as they attempt to rebrand the narrative)

This is not the argument of a fiscal conservative, nor is a remotely compelling argument for anyone anywhere. This is a dumb, awful, no good argument.

[Deletedaccount1]

It was a bi-partisan bill with bi-partisan support in the Senate. Boehner refused to even bring it up for a vote. That's purely on Boehner and the GOP.

Okay? It was a bad bill. Conservatives generally reviled it outside the senate. You seem to be ignoring that part.

Considering that's a core part of Trumps justification for the wall, it's absolutely here, there, and everywhere.

Trump disagrees with you, and even then we know that walls alone do little to stop illegal entries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Fence_Act_of_2006

I said this in another thread but CBP believes that walls do work. The fact that the one fence didn't work just means we need something better, not that we need nothing.

Remember, Trump things all that "technology stuff" is fluff, rather than a crucial part of any border security infrastructure to ensure that the CBP has immediate and expansive access to information and activity along the border. A wall alone is pointless and hasn't been an effective defensive mechanism for hundreds and hundreds of years.

I wouldn't call it fluff but things like drones and other advanced methods of detection should be considered the icing on the cake, the cake being the wall.

How do you figure?

If we really wanted to stop and thoroughly prevent any drugs coming through legal points of entry, it would necessitate the process of getting into the country being slower. Not just because you would physically need to spend more time searching but you would need to do things along the lines of conducting background checks if possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._Latin_America

The US has actively meddled in the governments of almost every single central/southern American country over the past 100 years, frequently propping up authoritarian regimes, corrupt governments, and brutal rebel groups.

Because one country managed to get through US meddling and is now doing alright doesn't mean that every country is capable of that.

I know this. I reject the idea that this is why these countries are poor and why people want to leave them. Some countries that we meddled in ended up okay. Some of the ones where our meddling made no difference like Cuba also saw huge numbers of people emigrating. These countries are corrupt and have deeper problems in their core that is not related to what foreign powers have done to them. They need to be fixed from the inside regardless of who is to blame for their current state of affairs.

[Zaktar]

It is lower but it is still high. When people say this, to me it just means we should have dealt with this years ago and shouldn't repeat the same mistakes. Looking at illegals more broadly regardless of how they came in, Trump got into trouble with the media for saying this:

They accepted those numbers because that is what they are and it is striking. Fencing, a wall, whatever on strategic sections of border is one step of a necessary process for stopping these people from coming into the country and fixing the immigration system as a whole.

Should Trump have done this earlier? Yes. Should he have focused on things besides just constructing a wall on the border? Yes. But $5 billion is not expensive for the federal government and if you take a conservative/libertarian view like I do that the government wastes most of the money it spends than this really seems like a no-brainer.

High compared to what? What benefits are derived from lowering that stat? What costs are borne from maintaining the existing status quo? How do those costs compare to the actual cost of the wall (likely far greater than 5 billion), how do they compare to the enormous economic damage being inflicted on the country by shutting down the government, something which Trump said he was proud to do to achieve this wall? Be specific if you want to be convincing.

[Deletedaccount1]

Those numbers were wrong, and even Fox news agrees. The crime numbers included entering the country, and reentering, as crimes. That is highly misleading.

That's the total number, not the number of violent offenses which was quite alarming.

- - - Updated - - -

"The government wastes all kinds of money, so what's intentionally wasting another $5B?" (though it's up to $6.7B I believe, as the GOP just tacked on another billion for "humanitarian aid" as they attempt to rebrand the narrative)

This is not the argument of a fiscal conservative, nor is a remotely compelling argument for anyone anywhere. This is a dumb, awful, no good argument.

I don't consider that wasting money.

[Edge-]

Okay? It was a bad bill. Conservatives generally reviled it outside the senate. You seem to be ignoring that part.

If it was so reviled, why not bring it up for a vote and let them vote it down? Then there would have at least been the chance for a compromise, as Republicans in the Senate thought there was. That's not even trying.

I said this in another thread but CBP believes that walls do work. The fact that the one fence didn't work just means we need something better, not that we need nothing.

It means that "physical barriers" alone are not terribly effective. And again, given Trumps overt hostility towards the use of technology as "fluff", and the fact that there are currently no plans in place for monitoring and other support via technology for the current wall (which is already a design disaster per an actual engineer and not a contractor - https://twitter.com/RandyResist/stat...63907321077761), any "THE WALL" built will similarly be easily circumvented as the fencing was.

I wouldn't call it fluff but things like drones and other advanced methods of detection should be considered the icing on the cake, the cake being the wall.

You may not, but Trump does. And this is his "THE WALL".

If we really wanted to stop and thoroughly prevent any drugs coming through legal points of entry, it would necessitate the process of getting into the country being slower. Not just because you would physically need to spend more time searching but you would need to do things along the lines of conducting background checks if possible.

The process of physically entering the country, yes. Not the process of going through the immigration process, which is what I was specifically discussing. Two separate issues, dude.

I know this. I reject the idea that this is why these countries are poor and why people want to leave them. Some countries that we meddled in ended up well. Some of the ones where our meddling made no difference like Cuba also saw huge numbers of people emigrating. These countries are corrupt and have deeper problems in their core that is not related to what foreign powers have done to them. They need to be fixed from the inside regardless of who is to blame for their current state of affairs.

I'm not placing all the blame on the US, mind you, but the US absolutely made things worse and bears a level of responsibility. As a result, we should similarly be responsible for working to support those countries and ensure that they have stable democracies and economies that wouldn't lead to mass-migration of people fearing for their lives and safety in their native countries.

[Deletedaccount1]

High compared to what? What benefits are derived from lowering that stat? What costs are borne from maintaining the existing status quo? How do those costs compare to the actual cost of the wall (likely far greater than 5 billion), how do they compare to the enormous economic damage being inflicted on the country by shutting down the government, something which Trump said he was proud to do to achieve this wall? Be specific if you want to be convincing.

It is not high compared to say, entitlements or the defense budget. Which, no pun intended, often seem to be a lot less concrete in what they accomplish. The benefits would be lowering crime in many areas, preserving our culture through a functional immigration system, and preserving our sovereignty.

I don't know the answers to the highlighted questions partly because they are complex and partly because I don't have a crystal ball in front of me.

[Zaktar]

It is not high compared to say, entitlements or the defense budget. Which, no pun intended, often seem to be a lot less concrete in what they accomplish. The benefits would be lowering crime in many areas, preserving our culture through a functional immigration system, and preserving our sovereignty.

I don't know the answers to the highlighted questions partly because they are complex and partly because I don't have a crystal ball in front of me.

Wait you need a crystal ball to understand the costs incurred by the existing border security "problems," or it's too complex to enumerate them? So you're admitting that you don't actually know how much of a problem it is? Why do you want to solve it then?