Trump to declare national emergency to build border wall

dachuda has taken over the "i heart trump" fan club from rocketslegend...

 

I am actually critical of him on a number of things, but you see my support of his wall as an endorsement because you're completely partisan. I've even critiqued the wall in some ways and have made it clear I have diverging views from him on that too.

 

Partisan? More Independents oppose using a fake emergency to build his vanity wall than Democrats. And many republicans oppose trump, his wall, and his overreach with the fake emergency. So yea, call it "partisan".

But you keep defending/supporting trump... it fits you well.

 

People seem really keen on presenting caravan asylum seekers in a bad light. I'm curious as to why that is. They are following the law. They aren't trying to sneak into the country, they are hoping to have contact with border patrol agents. They are coming into legal ports of entry. The majority of them return for their hearings. That percentage would likely be increased if there were more personnel to process their asylum petitions.

I don't understand why there is an effort to demonize these people. Even the ones that don't qualify but want to apply or folks that have endured hardships in their own country and have undergone further hardships to make it out of their nation.

I also hear people say they should stay in Mexico for their asylum. Why is it a negative that someone actually likes the United States and wants to be a part of this nation?

It is a very strange thing the way some people demonize asylum seekers and especially caravan asylum seekers.

 

They are not in danger. They are in Mexico after leaving the country. They can seek asylum in Mexico. When you are a real asylum seeker, you don't get to pick they best country for you economically. That's called being an economic migrant. Not an asylum seeker. Stop trying to blur those lines.

 

You do understand that is some condition that you decided to put on the seekers and nothing like that is mandated by the actual process, right?

That's not the way asylum works. You are just making stuff up that has nothing to do with the actual asylum process. Nothing mandates that asylum seekers must seek asylum in the nearest country offering asylum. Maybe that is how you would do it, maybe it isn't. But nothing says that unless a person does that they aren't real asylum seekers.

You aren't a judge familiar with the particulars of all the cases. Some might actually be economic migrants, and some might be legitimate asylum seekers. Neither you nor I have the particulars and details of the case to judge that. There are people more qualified to make those judgments and they will. I'm not sure why you would even think for a second that you knew enough about their cases to make that judgment.

If you don't think walking 1500 miles with minimal supplies is dangerous, then my guess is that you wouldn't be good as a risk assessor for an insurance company.

 

My God you are easy to fool. Thank God you don't review those "asylum" cases.

 

What? Is actually looking at the evidence before deciding either way getting fooled? LOL.

If that is the case I will plead guilty to getting fooled into knowing the details.

I will give you credit for being able to judge without looking at any specific details from any of the cases.

 

It is his special power. With great power comes great responsibility.

 

We need to focus on protecting our allies overseas first.

 

you're right we're under attack

 

They have no valid reason in most casis and are coming for economic reasons. Otherwise Mexico is fine because it is safe. Asylum is what pro immigration activists advise immigrants to go for to game the system. You know this though, and it is obvious you are playing stupid.

 

I always thought 'asylum seeker' was an odd name. For clarity, maybe we need something more bureaucratic -- "asylum applicant." Or, "prospective asylum applicant" for all those people waiting for the chance to apply in the Mexican shantytown.

 

Alleged? Nah too criminal... wait perfect for illegals. Alleged Asylum Seeker

 

They are fleeing violence in Central America. Mexico has Iraq levels of violence.

War on drugs for the win!

 

Unless you know the particulars for each applicant, you have no idea whether or not their claims are valid.

We have seen how dangerous and corrupt Mexico is by posters on this very board.

If there were more personnel to sort through the cases, they would get rid of the non-acceptable applicants sooner. As is, Trump shut down the government and there were applicants who had waited for 3 years but when their hearing date approached the shut down didn't allow them their hearing. So now they are back at the end of the line.

Trump just made sure many asylum seekers will be here for years longer than they were supposed to be.

 

You may have a very logical fact based post. But if it doesn't gel with someone value, no amount of facts and logic would work. I'm guessing the values of in-group purity and respect / loyalty for authority are what push people to see caravan asylum seeker in bad light, as the top man push that on a regular basis.

Logic, or rational arguments, is then used to justify.

As an example...

The world isn't fair, but harming people isn't what most people would want to do. Thus, there is a struggle on the harming of these kids vs the harming of the in-group due to these outsider coming in. The harming of the in-group is likely more powerful and would win out. So, if there are a couple of bad apples (and of course there are, which the man at the top take advantage of, or simply invent out of air, to amplify), that is almost enough risk to take the, sorry, i know it's not fair, but I value our group, our people, and us not being harm more than you and your family. You are bad, go away. How are you bad, fill in reasons - you aren’t really facing voilence, you hurt your kids by dragging them with you, you aren’t honest.. and so on.

 

Precisely my concern with this tactic. It is I think solely related to 'funding' issues, but still a very slippery slope.

I would also be interested in knowing exactly how much 'wall' is going to be funded this way. Another billion or so is one thing (and I think what the plan is, basically somewhere around the $2.7B that was out there before)...funding tens of billions this way is another. But I don't see the latter as feasibe, so it must be the former (was in Hawaii while all this was going on....so was blissfully distant from all the political chatter that surely has gone on around this).

 

Very fair observation. For myself, the only 'bad light' I see them in isn't from them...but from the process/puppeteers around them. They seem pawns to me, and I think the story should be around the forces using them...not them.