President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[PaloAltoCougar]

Too often the discussion about a wall becomes a stupidly binary "wall vs. no wall" debate. I think most of us who detest Trump's pointless grandstanding (a beautiful, 30' high wall from coast to coast, paid for by Mexico) acknowledge the importance of a wall in some places, a fence in others, and nada in many other areas (there are hundreds of miles currently with no barrier whatsoever and the number of illegal crossings is, I'm told, negligible). Spending billions on a complete wall would be total waste, and not just because that would comprise only a small percentage of the total border. Trump should acknowledge that and apply the funds saved for other purposes, including detection and immigration/asylum processing. But's not nearly as sexy for the stupid part of his base, so he panders away.

[swampfrog]

Too often the discussion about a wall becomes a stupidly binary "wall vs. no wall" debate. I think most of us who detest Trump's pointless grandstanding (a beautiful, 30' high wall from coast to coast, paid for by Mexico) acknowledge the importance of a wall in some places, a fence in others, and nada in many other areas (there are hundreds of miles currently with no barrier whatsoever and the number of illegal crossings is, I'm told, negligible). Spending billions on a complete wall would be total waste, and not just because that would comprise only a small percentage of the total border. Trump should acknowledge that and apply the funds saved for other purposes, including detection and immigration/asylum processing. But's not nearly as sexy for the stupid part of his base, so he panders away.

Yes, agreed. The important conversation is about how much wall, or how much immigration. Neither completely open borders nor completely closed borders are tenable positions. There will always be populations of people (especially men) who will engage in high risk/high reward behaviors. Both as heroes and unfortunately tyrants. Successful economic societies will always have a minority of wealthy individuals willing to exchange money for access to illicit activities or goods. Those willing to risk getting caught will constantly seek the lowest risk path to providing those services or substances. This requires constant dialog and investigation of where the weakest points are. Increased security at the checkpoints will push suppliers to find other means of entry--as long as there is sufficient demand.

That an individual of contemptible character is incapable of articulating this--or that media is hell bent on mischaracterizing it on the odd chance such a miracle occurs--does not absolve of the responsibility of seeking to understand those who advocate the same position.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.

--John Stuart Mill

[Commando]

It was badly worded and tangential to the conversation anyway, however, if the process by which asylum is granted is simplified, does that not increase the risk of bad actors navigating that system? The more simplified or easy a legal path to immigration, the more it will be infiltrated by such actors for illicit purposes.

Back to the original claim:
Experts in sex trafficking agree that a physical wall in coordination with other efforts improves the chances of preventing child trafficking. Are they also all saying stupid things?

They are kind of saying stupid things if they are blaming the scourge of human trafficking on the right to apply for asylum. Kidding aside, I'm not sure if this guy is advocating for a coast-to-coast wall. If he is, well that is stupid based on the impossibility of that task alone. But I don't think he is. He gives examples of the wall in Mexicali (exemplifying barriers in populous areas) delaying trafficking activities-- that's exactly the kind of walls we have in place and have all agreed are good and can build more of if need be.

I'm familiar with this guy's CNN article (at least I think it was him) advocating for a wall to assist with efforts to curb sex trafficking. Yes, there are definitely cases of human and drug trafficking that go across the desert rather than at points of entry or populated areas (like Mexicali), but my understanding is that it's a drop in the bucket, and that technologies suggested by civil engineers and other logistics experts, such as satellite and infrared tech in concert with advanced training for CBP agents (TECHNOLOGY NOT CURRENTLY IN PLACE), would actually suffice as far as securing the perimeter-- obviously much more practical than a brick and mortar wall. With that technology, known trafficking routes like the 19 he mentioned would be covered and unknown routes would be discovered.

As PAC notes above, it's really, really crazy far fetched to think you can have a wall along the entire border, even if the whole thing was flat and primed for wall building, which it's not. Check out a map of the border and get a feel for what kind of scale we're talking. Further, U.S./Mexico border jumping only comprises a certain percentage of unregulated immigration as well; if we're serious about curbing undocumented immigration, why are we blowing the whole budget on keeping brown South/Central Americans out? Because it's politically appealing for some people? As I've repeated ad nauseam by now, yes there are portions of border, particularly near ports of entry and border towns, where a wall is practical, sensible, and effective. There are other parts, namely in the mountains and in the middle of the Sonoran desert, where not so much. I'm just sick of all the rhetoric surrounding the support for a giant Trump Wall. It's pretty insulting to even have to address it.

[frank ryan]

Thanks, let me add this to the list of what democrats think:

(4) Immigrants (non-citizens), undocumented or documented, are not a drain on the welfare or other social programs. Bernie is wrong and not a real Dem. He is just an old, white fart (aka. man) that hates poor people. The DNC was well justified in screwing him over in the 2016 primaries.

Could you post some links that show that non-citizens (i.e., undocumented/document or legal/illegal immigrants) don't use a dime from welfare or other social programs so I can document these "facts" that you are talking about? TIA.

Hey, how about the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS.org)? What is your non-partisan, expert opinion of them? They seem to have some interesting articles but I am sure they give yugely dishonest presentations of the "facts", right? For example:

https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-W...al-Immigration

https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen...lfare-Programs

https://cis.org/Report/Unaccompanied...-Crisis-Border

https://cis.org/Report/Have-Terroris...sed-Our-Border

It looks like their board is a bunch of dumbass academics from places like Cornell, Vanderbilt, North Carolina, etc. (all claiming to be a so called "University"). Therefore, I am guessing they don't know their heads from their butts. You know how those academic types are.

If we want to know the real "facts" then we just need to talk to you and the Commando, right?

Even your FAIR propaganda said in the details that undocumented immigrants aren't qualifying for the benefits, it's their citizen kids that do.

Undocumented immigrants can get on WIC, in very specific life threatening situations they might be able to qualify for emergency medicaid (the funds spent on emergency medicaid in total make up just 1 percent of the medicaid budget). No food stamps, or TANF/FEP (cash assistance) or regular medicaid, disability medicaid, chip medical care. I guess undocumented kids can go to school and get free school lunches.

Here is a blurb from the Libertarian CATO institute:

"One reason why immigrants use fewer benefits is because they are often not eligible for them. Legal immigrants cannot get welfare for their first five years of residency, with few exceptions, mostly at the state level. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare except for rare circumstances like emergency Medicaid."

https://www.google.com/search?client...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

Here is a link to more detailed policy from the USDA website reguarding eligibility for non-cizitins:

https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligib...citizen-policy

If you keep posting shit from altright organizations, when it comes to immigrations, you are going to keep being wrong. And don't believe our shitbird president, he lies all the time:

Trump retweeted a false claim about government benefits received by undocumented immigrants

That $3,874 figure has been floating around. It appears to stem from a Facebook post in 2017, showing documentation of an initial payment to new residents in a country. But the payment wasn’t to an undocumented immigrant, it was to a refugee who was participating in a resettlement program. Actually, to a family of five refugees.

And the payment wasn’t in the United States. It was in Canada.

Immigrants in the country illegally are not eligible for most government benefits programs by law. Undocumented immigrants can’t legally receive food stamps, live in public housing, enroll in non-emergency Medicaid coverage or receive supplemental security insurance or cash assistance. They are eligible to receive emergency medical services, enroll in public schools and participate in meals programs there, and participate in Head Start or WIC. There is no federal program that directly gives cash to immigrants in the country illegally.

Note that many of these services apply specifically to children. Many of the children of immigrants in the country illegally are citizens, entitling them to a broader range of assistance, if needed.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.27d77aca6881

[frank ryan]

They are kind of saying stupid things if they are blaming the scourge of human trafficking on the right to apply for asylum. Kidding aside, I'm not sure if this guy is advocating for a coast-to-coast wall. If he is, well that is stupid based on the impossibility of that task alone. But I don't think he is. He gives examples of the wall in Mexicali (exemplifying barriers in populous areas) delaying trafficking activities-- that's exactly the kind of walls we have in place and have all agreed are good and can build more of if need be.

I'm familiar with this guy's CNN article (at least I think it was him) advocating for a wall to assist with efforts to curb sex trafficking. Yes, there are definitely cases of human and drug trafficking that go across the desert rather than at points of entry or populated areas (like Mexicali), but my understanding is that it's a drop in the bucket, and that technologies suggested by civil engineers and other logistics experts, such as satellite and infrared tech in concert with advanced training for CBP agents (TECHNOLOGY NOT CURRENTLY IN PLACE), would actually suffice as far as securing the perimeter-- obviously much more practical than a brick and mortar wall. With that technology, known trafficking routes like the 19 he mentioned would be covered and unknown routes would be discovered.

As PAC notes above, it's really, really crazy far fetched to think you can have a wall along the entire border, even if the whole thing was flat and primed for wall building, which it's not. Check out a map of the border and get a feel for what kind of scale we're talking. Further, U.S./Mexico border jumping only comprises a certain percentage of unregulated immigration as well; if we're serious about curbing undocumented immigration, why are we blowing the whole budget on keeping brown South/Central Americans out? Because it's politically appealing for some people? As I've repeated ad nauseam by now, yes there are portions of border, particularly near ports of entry and border towns, where a wall is practical, sensible, and effective. There are other parts, namely in the mountains and in the middle of the Sonoran desert, where not so much. I'm just sick of all the rhetoric surrounding the support for a giant Trump Wall. It's pretty insulting to even have to address it.

Some people (Stephen Miller and Trump) want to keep out brown people while drumming up fear our "culture" will die off if white people are not the majority. The wall, for a lot of folk is about racism. There's nothing sincerely pragmatic about it. It started out a simple talking point given our moronic president so he could stay on topic, and stir up his angry and scared base.

If someone thinks it's pragmatic they are not smart.

[Uncle Ted]

Too often the discussion about a wall becomes a stupidly binary "wall vs. no wall" debate. I think most of us who detest Trump's pointless grandstanding (a beautiful, 30' high wall from coast to coast, paid for by Mexico) acknowledge the importance of a wall in some places, a fence in others, and nada in many other areas (there are hundreds of miles currently with no barrier whatsoever and the number of illegal crossings is, I'm told, negligible). Spending billions on a complete wall would be total waste, and not just because that would comprise only a small percentage of the total border. Trump should acknowledge that and apply the funds saved for other purposes, including detection and immigration/asylum processing. But's not nearly as sexy for the stupid part of his base, so he panders away.

Total waste? That seems rather binary.

The Cost of a Border Wall vs. the Cost of Illegal Immigration

The findings of this analysis show that if a border wall stopped a small fraction of the illegal immigrants who are expected to come in the next decade, the fiscal savings from having fewer illegal immigrants in the country would be sufficient to cover the costs of the wall. This analysis takes the likely education level of illegal border-crossers and applies fiscal estimates developed by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NAS) for immigrants by education level. NAS calculates the future fiscal balance immigrants create — taxes paid minus costs. NAS reports fiscal balances as "net present values", which places a lower value on future expenditures than on current expenditures.

Based on the NAS data, illegal border-crossers create an average fiscal burden of approximately $74,722 during their lifetimes, excluding any costs for their U.S.-born children. If a border wall stopped between 160,000 and 200,000 illegal crossers — 9 to 12 percent of those expected to successfully cross in the next decade — the fiscal savings would equal the $12 to $15 billion cost of the wall
[...]

https://cis.org/Report/Cost-Border-W...-Immigration#2

Of course, the Commando will tell you the NAS data is total bullshit and you can't trust any of those distinguished scientists, engineers, physicians, and researchers, not to mention 300 Nobel laureates, that make up the academy's membership.

I would like to see some money be spent on training sharks with frick'n lasers on their heads to swim up and down the Rio Grande to keep our border secure. Unfortunately the Rio Grande doesn't cover the entire Texas border but we could use a few in the Red River as well to keep those OU fans from wondering too far from Norman.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Total waste? That seems rather binary. ...

A fair point. I'll go with "waste of Brobdingnagian proportions." Those who disagree would likely also support a wall along the Canadian border as an occasional illegal no doubt crosses there as well.

[swampfrog]

They are kind of saying stupid things if they are blaming the scourge of human trafficking on the right to apply for asylum. Kidding aside, I'm not sure if this guy is advocating for a coast-to-coast wall. If he is, well that is stupid based on the impossibility of that task alone. But I don't think he is. He gives examples of the wall in Mexicali (exemplifying barriers in populous areas) delaying trafficking activities-- that's exactly the kind of walls we have in place and have all agreed are good and can build more of if need be.

I retract the comment as written. I still contend that human traffickers will exploit the weakest point. If the weakest point is a physical barrier (or lack thereof), that is where attempts will be made. If the weakest link is process, then that will be exploited, or human weakness through bribery also. It's unfortunate that civil societies have to voluntarily surrender freedoms in order to regulate the behaviors of pathological individuals, but it is necessary. A secure border is one of those.

I'm not convinced we've all agreed that building at least some more wall may be useful.

I'm familiar with this guy's CNN article (at least I think it was him) advocating for a wall to assist with efforts to curb sex trafficking. Yes, there are definitely cases of human and drug trafficking that go across the desert rather than at points of entry or populated areas (like Mexicali), but my understanding is that it's a drop in the bucket, and that technologies suggested by civil engineers and other logistics experts, such as satellite and infrared tech in concert with advanced training for CBP agents (TECHNOLOGY NOT CURRENTLY IN PLACE), would actually suffice as far as securing the perimeter-- obviously much more practical than a brick and mortar wall. With that technology, known trafficking routes like the 19 he mentioned would be covered and unknown routes would be discovered.

Agreement here. I'm for allocating the resources where they can do the maximum good, but still recognizing that any allocation itself will change the nature of the game. It's a perpetual problem. In other words, if might suffice for a time, until the perimeter is tested for other weaknesses.

As PAC notes above, it's really, really crazy far fetched to think you can have a wall along the entire border, even if the whole thing was flat and primed for wall building, which it's not. Check out a map of the border and get a feel for what kind of scale we're talking. Further, U.S./Mexico border jumping only comprises a certain percentage of unregulated immigration as well; if we're serious about curbing undocumented immigration, why are we blowing the whole budget on keeping brown South/Central Americans out? Because it's politically appealing for some people? As I've repeated ad nauseam by now, yes there are portions of border, particularly near ports of entry and border towns, where a wall is practical, sensible, and effective. There are other parts, namely in the mountains and in the middle of the Sonoran desert, where not so much. I'm just sick of all the rhetoric surrounding the support for a giant Trump Wall. It's pretty insulting to even have to address it.

Trump is not the only party guilty of rhetoric.

[Uncle Ted]

Here is a blurb from the Libertarian CATO institute:

I totally approve of quoting reports from CATO... Here is one that is very Ron Paulan:

Building a Wall around the Welfare State, Instead of the Country
[...]
Critics of immigration reform worry about immigrants disproportionately consuming pub- lic benefits. Instead, they should support legal
changes to immigrant welfare eligibility. Eliminating immigrant welfare eligibility for Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP or food stamps), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid, and other programs would, in the words of the Cato Institute’s late Chairman Emeritus William Niskanen, “build a wall around the welfare state, not around the country.” Doing so would reduce immigrant welfare dependency and could increase the pace of intergenerational mobility among immigrants. Such measures would also be constitutional. This policy analysis shows how to implement those reforms.
[...]

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.o...a732_web_1.pdf

The report goes on to show that Non-citizens do use benefits from Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, Unemployment Benefits and other social programs. Also we need to do is build a wall around the welfare state. Talk to your Dem friends and let's get immigration reform like this done!

[swampfrog]

Original tweet linked, and the rest of the thread copied and pasted.

Embedded Tweet

This isn't unique to Evangelicals. Democrats have their stories about what motivates Republicans. And vice versa. Social justice Activists have their stories about what motivates Trumpies. And vice versa. None of the caricatures match the reality. /2

If our impression of the other side comes almost entirely from the stories our side tells about them, and the stories are constructed from cherry-picked examples designed to make the other side look bad, our impressions are almost guaranteed to be wrong./3

If we want to understand what motivates the other side, we should spend time listening to and interacting with reasonable people on the other side. Let them tell us what motivates them in their own words. We don't have to take it all at face-value, but we should start there./4

Arlie Hochschild does this in "Strangers in their own Land". Her character profile might not be perfect, but, if you're on the left, and want to understand what motivates Trump voters, it's magnitudes better than the story the left is currently telling about them./5

Similar efforts could be made to understand the motivations of any out-group. But here's the problem. When you make this effort, your opponents are bound to look a little more human. If you find that inconvenient, then carry on with your cartoon characterizations./6 (end)

[Commando]

Some people (Stephen Miller and Trump) want to keep out brown people while drumming up fear our "culture" will die off if white people are not the majority. The wall, for a lot of folk is about racism. There's nothing sincerely pragmatic about it. It started out a simple talking point given our moronic president so he could stay on topic, and stir up his angry and scared base.

If someone thinks it's pragmatic they are not smart.

If we are being direct, the wall is a long-time White Nationalist/White Supremacist tenet. Of course it doesn't work in a pragmatic sense. It's the messaging that resonates.

[Uncle Ted]

A fair point. I'll go with "waste of Brobdingnagian proportions." Those who disagree would likely also support a wall along the Canadian border as an occasional illegal no doubt crosses there as well.

Yeah, maybe Drumpf should say "build a barrier" rather than "build a wall"... then HRC fans would approve:

[ScoopJahoop]

It would seem to me that you should be a lot more conflicted about this. Sure, there are drugs and slaves being brought over the border, but there are also lots of guns! As long as the number of guns crossing the border is enough to shoot all the bad hombres crossing the border it’s a net positive.

[Uncle Ted]

If we are being direct, the wall is a long-time White Nationalist/White Supremacist tenet. Of course it doesn't work in a pragmatic sense. It's the messaging that resonates.

OMG... You are right! There is a connection between Hillary Clinton (who voted to fund the wall) and the KKK (Sen. Robert Byrd)!

Embedded Tweet

[frank ryan]

Original tweet linked, and the rest of the thread copied and pasted.

Embedded Tweet

This isn't unique to Evangelicals. Democrats have their stories about what motivates Republicans. And vice versa. Social justice Activists have their stories about what motivates Trumpies. And vice versa. None of the caricatures match the reality. /2

If our impression of the other side comes almost entirely from the stories our side tells about them, and the stories are constructed from cherry-picked examples designed to make the other side look bad, our impressions are almost guaranteed to be wrong./3

If we want to understand what motivates the other side, we should spend time listening to and interacting with reasonable people on the other side. Let them tell us what motivates them in their own words. We don't have to take it all at face-value, but we should start there./4

Arlie Hochschild does this in "Strangers in their own Land". Her character profile might not be perfect, but, if you're on the left, and want to understand what motivates Trump voters, it's magnitudes better than the story the left is currently telling about them./5

Similar efforts could be made to understand the motivations of any out-group. But here's the problem. When you make this effort, your opponents are bound to look a little more human. If you find that inconvenient, then carry on with your cartoon characterizations./6 (end)

I'm sorry man but the thought that the wall supporters are poor victims of misunderstanding and malinging is hogwash. You bring up tribalism and "othering" other frequently, but seem oblivious to the reality that forces, in power, on the right are the true kings of division and identify politics. That speaks to the real fear of outsider groups.

Not all sides are all the same or equally well or ill-intentioned. Not all side are equally culpable. Yes, motivations are often complex, but let's not sugar coat the power of anger and fear, which Trump is wielding. Trump is your guy for tribalism. He goes for people's worst instincts with his lies, appeals to emotions etc. His rhetoric from a president is unmatched, and represented a new low in public discourse. He's worse than feared social justice activistists or cultural marxists (a made up derisive term that showed in the words of the last synagogue shooter).