I will shut down the government. I will take that mantle

I am on record of not being the biggest proponent of the wall but I dont oppose it at this point. The voters did vote for it so it is not a surprise that this is happening. I just hope it isn't being blocked due to hatred. I dont recall this being a big issue before trump.
A wall is fine, but in a few years technology should be able to zap any border crossers but zapping folks would cause a whole new set of human right issues.

 

Yes Yes Yes Hahahaha!

 

A questionable justification... voters voted for trump, not specifically for a wall. Further, based on what even has been claimed on D&D, many people that voted for trump claim they were actually voting against clinton. And further, more people actually voted for clinton, not trump. So based on that, people didn't vote for the wall... at least 2% more people voted against the wall (if you use your initial position).

And now two years after the election, a significant majority oppose the wall. An even larger majority don't want tax money spent on building a wall. And an even larger majority don't consider the wall a priority.

Spending more on technology (surveillance, drones, e-verify)? Now all those are desired.

 

On top of that, the people that did vote for the wall voted for a wall that Mexico would pay for.

 

Ahh my bad, I see it now (not saying I agree, mind you).

What podcast? Just curious. The Haitian revolution is a huge event in history, but one that often gets little coverage or analysis.

 

Well, suffice it to say that I disagree with pretty much all of this analysis.

Combating illegal immigration has way more public support than you're allowing for.

Is a wall the best way to do it? That could be debated.

By the way, anybody really interested in this topic would do well to read "Border Odyssey."

http://www.borderodyssey.com/

The author is a left wing academician, but he tells an intriguing story with several compelling points.

One is that there is no wall/fence in the Sonoran desert in Arizona (I think I have that right), because US planners thought that illegal immigrants would be crazy to use that route -- it's often fatal.

Yet, because there is no wall/fence there, that's where they go; and the result is often as predicted.

So, it seems to me that a wall/fence would make a lot of sense here, if only for the protection of would-be illegal immigrants. Sort of like how pools and power stations are fenced off.

 

insane-in-chief this AM... utters a dangerously radical threat floated out last week.



This is questionable at best and would further test presidential powers and an executive branch run amok. I wonder if republican members of congress would really want to abdicate more of their responsibility of "checks and balances" and equal power to this presidency (even liz cheney, sits on Armed Forces and Rules committees, and a wall supporter, says she would not want the president to invoke emergency powers to get the wall).



Interesting thread explores what would need to happen for trump to declare building the wall an "emergency"...

 

It is called "Revolutions".

 

I can't believe this is the hill Trump is willing to die on. It's a loser with 70% of Americans.

The fact that he can't see Healthcare and the Economy ranking higher is alarming.

He's running political ads on TV!

Does he not realize that the way the border is set up it basically funnels migrants into a death trap in the desert?

 

And, as usual, trump even lies or at best misleads about what congressman smith even said...

 

Just imagine if Obama had tried this emergency power nonsense. The wingers would be going absolutely bonkers. It’s unreal how far they are willing to go for Donald Freaking Trump. Completely brainwashed.

 

The Sonoran desert as a public health hazard is a different topic. You want to try to re-route people as safely as possible. I'd imagine some sign posts every few hundred feet would be just as practical.

My argument has never been that people aren't for border security.

There's hardly any way you can ask that question to a potential voter without them saying "yeah, I support border security/less illegal immigration".

It's like asking someone if they support ice cream and oppose kicking puppies. There's no nuance to it and so people don't have to think twice.

The wall itself is hugely unpopular because people know it is expensive and ineffective. It's a vanity project that will not achieve its objective and offer only protection similar to the TSA, another well-loved instance of taxpayer funded security theater. This is not up for debate. And Democrats will rightly never, ever, ever budge on this.

The other reason it isn't popular? Illegal immigration is one of those weird situations where the benefits of stopping it does not outweigh the cost in time and effort to prevent it.

Border security/illegal immigration is just a fetish issue for those who are either A) obsessed with criminality and order (a fairly common trait among the rightwing) B) paranoid or xenophobic (another largely rightwing thing) or C) unhappy with their current station in life and looking to blame it on someone else (a universal trait, aye).

The two most effective (and cheap!) ways to solve our immigration problems are:

• Modernizing our naturalization system which is universally loathed, unnecessarily complicated, and woefully outdated
• Helping neighboring countries in crisis achieve stability and equilibrium

Of course getting either of these things done requires an enormous amount of political capital, so we're probably stuck with our non-problem/problem for a while. Rest assured our conservative friends will still keep beating this drum despite record low border crossings and record low crime.

 

This...this exactly. It's unreal...particularly for people that normally scream and shout about the need for limited government. Just unreal.

 

Thanks for the reply.

To your point though, "the voters" who voted for the wall didn't vote for US tax payers to pay for it. They voted for Mexico to pay for it A. Also in this country with our constitution the way that it works, we don't just make laws based on the votes for a president that wins the electoral college. Making a LAW requires a higher standard which sets precedent that in order for you to get a law passed that was a campaign promise, you need to compromise somewhere along the way to get broad support. Making new laws should be hard, and have broad support. That's Democracy that our founders had sought to establish.

To my point though - The big issue is Trump NOT going about the normal legislative process in order to get a campaign promise fulfilled. If he was pushing a Wall bill through in the normal legislative way, that would be fine.

However he's not doing that. This is using a routine government funding resolution to hold government agencies such as the IRS, etc. hostage to AVOID the normal legislative process to force funding for a bill that does NOT have broad enough support to pass through the normal process.

How is it that level headed Republicans such as yourself are okay with this? Do you not realize that in 2021 a Democrat could become president and now there is precedent for using the Trump Shutdown negotiation method of shutting down the government to get an unpopular legislative campaign promise accomplished? Does it not irk you that someone like Elizabeth Warren could now cite the Trump 2019 shutdown as a method to getting funding for Free College For All or something else like that?

I think we are all in agreement about border security, and needing investments. That's not the issue here though. The issue here is how this is being handled by bypassing the constitutional path for governing just like how Trump is now bypassing Senate confirmation for cabinet nominations as well, and Republicans are letting him get away with that. This sets a precedent for future Presidents to follow. Just imagine how you'd feel about a Whitaker type of appointment without Senate confirmation if Hillary was president and she was under investigation by a Special Counsel.

.............

On the Wall issue:

I'm from Texas, and have been to Brownsville & other border towns all my life. Fencing is needed there, and I support areas where we can put fencing up. Call it a wall if you want. However, its ignorance of Trump voters to not know that "the wall" already exists where it can exist is laughably ridiculous. People are just really.... really uneducated & misled about our southern border. That's the primary problem here.

I'm all for investments in other areas such as ground sensors, technology, more manpower, drones, etc. and yes... fencings/walls where you need it such as bordering towns like Matamoras. It just pains me that the conversation around this issue has become so incredibly stupid, and how Republicans who live down here, and know better, aren't helping correct the presidents followers and the president however they can.

 

Good points. And the majority of people are still going towards the established points of entries... not through the Sonoran desert. But to add to your two effective and cost effective solutions to immigration problems, the third solution is to reduce the jobs magnet by enforcing current laws on employers and add tools like e-verify.

 

In 2021 and beyond, every sitting president will now be able to cite the 2019 Trump Shutdown when they now use routine budget resolutions to try and jam through campaign promises they couldn't fulfill through the normal legislative process.

How any Republican is okay with this precedent being set is beyond me.

 

Just for a little perspective ...

If the minority progressives in the 2018 Democrat Party acted like the minorityTea Party in the 2010 Republican Party,

• The minority in the majority would demand Single Payer, DACA protections and No Wall or no budget or debt level increase.
• Nancy Pelosi would appease the minority in the majority.
• Trump would have to cut a deal with the progressives to keep the government open.

Instead, the Democrats (Obama and Pelosi) had to act like the adult in the room 2010-2016 to keep government open. And in 2018, Pelosi will act like the adult in the room to keep government open.

 

While that indeed would be much more cost effective, I'm not sure the American economy could handle the system-shock of losing its undocumented workforce.

With unemployment low, I'm more fixated on fixing income inequality. I'm not sure that e-verify/employment law enforcement would do much to close the income gap and raise the standard of living for Americans.

Early on in the Trump presidency he floated an idea about a non-Citizen worker Visa program.

I hated it on its face. It seemed to basically be cementing the idea of second-class citizens into law.

But then after thinking about it for a while... the truth is that we already have an unwritten law creating second-class citizens... our immigration system is basically designed to create a bottom caste of undocumented workers... so we might as well get these folks on the record and have them contributing to our society at maximum efficiency.

The real question here is how we feel American citizenship should be governed. Do you like America Classic where anyone with the gumption to get here is granted citizenship and a right to pursue their dream, or do you like America Lite where it's all a gigantic bureaucratic tribalist clusterf***?

 

This is because of two reasons:

1) Democrats are the worst negotiators on the planet

2) Republicans are quite happy to sabotage the government and then claim "look! see! government doesn't work!"

 

I think granting citizenship to anyone who can get here is a bad idea and one that would be impossible to fix. Are you an open borders proponent?