Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".
What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:
● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.
● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.
● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.
● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.
The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.
The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.
It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.
The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.
No, it's simply not possible to build a massive wall bisecting the ranges of hundred of species without have a consequential environmental impact. Any wall that doesn't allow people through will not allow most non-avian species through, regardless of how they may attempt to mitigate this (if they even bother to attempt it. The track record here isn't good). Add in the environmental damage done during construction, including transportation of materials, equipment, and people, and the need to produce those materials themselves, and you have a potentially catastrophic impact.
Your other two points are so vague they're not really worth refuting.
Sorry but just not buying the environmental argument. No species will die because it can't cross from mexico to the US. Life always finds a way to adapt. Animals and the earth itself are amazingly resilient.
Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".
What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:
● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.
● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.
● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.
● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.
The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.
The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.
It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.
The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.
No, it's simply not possible to build a massive wall bisecting the ranges of hundred of species without have a consequential environmental impact. Any wall that doesn't allow people through will not allow most non-avian species through, regardless of how they may attempt to mitigate this (if they even bother to attempt it. The track record here isn't good). Add in the environmental damage done during construction, including transportation of materials, equipment, and people, and the need to produce those materials themselves, and you have a potentially catastrophic impact.
Your other two points are so vague they're not really worth refuting.
Sorry but just not buying the environmental argument. No species will die because it can't cross from mexico to the US. Life always finds a way to adapt. Animals and the earth itself are amazingly resilient.
Sorry, again you don't seem to actually know what you're talking about. I think you're just saying this because it's better than just typing "I don't give a shit."
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".
What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:
● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.
● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.
● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.
● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.
The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.
The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.
It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.
The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.
Well first, I'm glad there's actually a serious discussion on this thread, rather than the shit bag on the Hillary thread about her health. But I do find it a curious argument by Samuelson that the only way to push comprehensive reform forward is by spending 15-25 billion. That seems like a waste of my money. It's not as if there won't be tunnels or any other way around said wall. I am not in favor of the wall to start, but using it as a way to get comprehensive reform makes it silly. Particularly because the GOP's second demand is "No amnesty". I have no faith that their far right flank would allow them to move from this position.
Well that's the problem...no faith. You would be surprised about how much the right flank would be willing to bend if enforcement is verified and a wall is a massive step towards that verification. Of course people will always try to breach the wall in some capacity but it would be far easier for border guards to police a walled border then a non-walled one. People on the right will be far kinder to the 11 million undocumented individuals if they believe that there won't be another 11 million coming right behind them.
Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".
What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:
● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.
● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.
● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.
● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.
The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.
The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.
It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.
The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.
Well first, I'm glad there's actually a serious discussion on this thread, rather than the shit bag on the Hillary thread about her health. But I do find it a curious argument by Samuelson that the only way to push comprehensive reform forward is by spending 15-25 billion. That seems like a waste of my money. It's not as if there won't be tunnels or any other way around said wall. I am not in favor of the wall to start, but using it as a way to get comprehensive reform makes it silly. Particularly because the GOP's second demand is "No amnesty". I have no faith that their far right flank would allow them to move from this position.
Well that's the problem...no faith. You would be surprised about how much the right flank would be willing to bend if enforcement is verified and a wall is a massive step towards that verification. Of course people will always try to breach the wall in some capacity but it would be far easier for border guards to police a walled border then a non-walled one. People on the right will be far kinder to the 11 million undocumented individuals if they believe that there won't be another 11 million coming right behind them.
You're advocating to have faith that the right would do something they explicitly say they won't do; that they will flip flop on the issue. You'll have to forgive me being cynical on that point. I'm taking them at their word.
Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".
What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:
● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.
● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.
● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.
● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.
The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.
The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.
It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.
The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.
Well first, I'm glad there's actually a serious discussion on this thread, rather than the shit bag on the Hillary thread about her health. But I do find it a curious argument by Samuelson that the only way to push comprehensive reform forward is by spending 15-25 billion. That seems like a waste of my money. It's not as if there won't be tunnels or any other way around said wall. I am not in favor of the wall to start, but using it as a way to get comprehensive reform makes it silly. Particularly because the GOP's second demand is "No amnesty". I have no faith that their far right flank would allow them to move from this position.
Well that's the problem...no faith. You would be surprised about how much the right flank would be willing to bend if enforcement is verified and a wall is a massive step towards that verification. Of course people will always try to breach the wall in some capacity but it would be far easier for border guards to police a walled border then a non-walled one. People on the right will be far kinder to the 11 million undocumented individuals if they believe that there won't be another 11 million coming right behind them.
You're advocating to have faith that the right would do something they explicitly say they won't do; that they will flip flop on the issue. You'll have to forgive me being cynical on that point. I'm taking them at their word.
Not necessarily flip flopping at the congressional level. To be certain some will not budge. Others already support some type of legalization and will push for it if the will of their constituents demand it. Further, when polled, the "right" is far more reasonable on "normalization" then people give them credit for provided that security comes first. This is obviously the end game for both sides of the issue.
Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".
What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:
● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.
● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.
● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.
● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.
The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.
The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.
It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.
The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.
Well first, I'm glad there's actually a serious discussion on this thread, rather than the shit bag on the Hillary thread about her health. But I do find it a curious argument by Samuelson that the only way to push comprehensive reform forward is by spending 15-25 billion. That seems like a waste of my money. It's not as if there won't be tunnels or any other way around said wall. I am not in favor of the wall to start, but using it as a way to get comprehensive reform makes it silly. Particularly because the GOP's second demand is "No amnesty". I have no faith that their far right flank would allow them to move from this position.
Well that's the problem...no faith. You would be surprised about how much the right flank would be willing to bend if enforcement is verified and a wall is a massive step towards that verification. Of course people will always try to breach the wall in some capacity but it would be far easier for border guards to police a walled border then a non-walled one. People on the right will be far kinder to the 11 million undocumented individuals if they believe that there won't be another 11 million coming right behind them.
You're advocating to have faith that the right would do something they explicitly say they won't do; that they will flip flop on the issue. You'll have to forgive me being cynical on that point. I'm taking them at their word.
Not necessarily flip flopping at the congressional level. To be certain some will not budge. Others already support some type of legalization and will push for it if the will of their constituents demand it. Further, when polled, the "right" is far more reasonable on "normalization" then people give them credit for provided that security comes first. This is obviously the end game for both sides of the issue.</blockquote
According to this poll, there doesn't need to be a wall. So why is legislation not moving forward? Does such a minority hold such a disproportionate amount of influence?
Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".
What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:
● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.
● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.
● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.
● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.
The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.
The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.
It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.
The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.
No, it's simply not possible to build a massive wall bisecting the ranges of hundred of species without have a consequential environmental impact. Any wall that doesn't allow people through will not allow most non-avian species through, regardless of how they may attempt to mitigate this (if they even bother to attempt it. The track record here isn't good). Add in the environmental damage done during construction, including transportation of materials, equipment, and people, and the need to produce those materials themselves, and you have a potentially catastrophic impact.
Your other two points are so vague they're not really worth refuting.
Sorry but just not buying the environmental argument. No species will die because it can't cross from mexico to the US. Life always finds a way to adapt. Animals and the earth itself are amazingly resilient.
Sorry, again you don't seem to actually know what you're talking about. I think you're just saying this because it's better than just typing "I don't give a shit."
Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".
What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:
● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.
● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.
● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.
● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.
The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.
The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.
It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.
The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.
Well first, I'm glad there's actually a serious discussion on this thread, rather than the shit bag on the Hillary thread about her health. But I do find it a curious argument by Samuelson that the only way to push comprehensive reform forward is by spending 15-25 billion. That seems like a waste of my money. It's not as if there won't be tunnels or any other way around said wall. I am not in favor of the wall to start, but using it as a way to get comprehensive reform makes it silly. Particularly because the GOP's second demand is "No amnesty". I have no faith that their far right flank would allow them to move from this position.
Well that's the problem...no faith. You would be surprised about how much the right flank would be willing to bend if enforcement is verified and a wall is a massive step towards that verification. Of course people will always try to breach the wall in some capacity but it would be far easier for border guards to police a walled border then a non-walled one. People on the right will be far kinder to the 11 million undocumented individuals if they believe that there won't be another 11 million coming right behind them.
You're advocating to have faith that the right would do something they explicitly say they won't do; that they will flip flop on the issue. You'll have to forgive me being cynical on that point. I'm taking them at their word.
Not necessarily flip flopping at the congressional level. To be certain some will not budge. Others already support some type of legalization and will push for it if the will of their constituents demand it. Further, when polled, the "right" is far more reasonable on "normalization" then people give them credit for provided that security comes first. This is obviously the end game for both sides of the issue.
Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".
What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:
● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.
● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.
● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.
● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.
The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.
The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.
It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.
The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.
Well first, I'm glad there's actually a serious discussion on this thread, rather than the shit bag on the Hillary thread about her health. But I do find it a curious argument by Samuelson that the only way to push comprehensive reform forward is by spending 15-25 billion. That seems like a waste of my money. It's not as if there won't be tunnels or any other way around said wall. I am not in favor of the wall to start, but using it as a way to get comprehensive reform makes it silly. Particularly because the GOP's second demand is "No amnesty". I have no faith that their far right flank would allow them to move from this position.
Well that's the problem...no faith. You would be surprised about how much the right flank would be willing to bend if enforcement is verified and a wall is a massive step towards that verification. Of course people will always try to breach the wall in some capacity but it would be far easier for border guards to police a walled border then a non-walled one. People on the right will be far kinder to the 11 million undocumented individuals if they believe that there won't be another 11 million coming right behind them.
You're advocating to have faith that the right would do something they explicitly say they won't do; that they will flip flop on the issue. You'll have to forgive me being cynical on that point. I'm taking them at their word.
Not necessarily flip flopping at the congressional level. To be certain some will not budge. Others already support some type of legalization and will push for it if the will of their constituents demand it. Further, when polled, the "right" is far more reasonable on "normalization" then people give them credit for provided that security comes first. This is obviously the end game for both sides of the issue.
Unfortunately in the primaries they do.
They certainly do in the primaries, but why did the Gang of 8 fall apart and all 8 of them basically disowned their own positions? I'm not asking you to answer that per se, but I don't believe for one second that a pathway is going through with the way things are currently debated. In my mind, Trump needs to be defeated resoundingly to vanquish the alt-right and the ideas that Trump has latched onto related to these topic. Vanquish and salt the earth of its existence. Then maybe the GOP can start moving towards a tenable plan.
Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".
What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:
● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.
● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.
● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.
● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.
The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.
The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.
It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.
The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.
Well first, I'm glad there's actually a serious discussion on this thread, rather than the shit bag on the Hillary thread about her health. But I do find it a curious argument by Samuelson that the only way to push comprehensive reform forward is by spending 15-25 billion. That seems like a waste of my money. It's not as if there won't be tunnels or any other way around said wall. I am not in favor of the wall to start, but using it as a way to get comprehensive reform makes it silly. Particularly because the GOP's second demand is "No amnesty". I have no faith that their far right flank would allow them to move from this position.
Well that's the problem...no faith. You would be surprised about how much the right flank would be willing to bend if enforcement is verified and a wall is a massive step towards that verification. Of course people will always try to breach the wall in some capacity but it would be far easier for border guards to police a walled border then a non-walled one. People on the right will be far kinder to the 11 million undocumented individuals if they believe that there won't be another 11 million coming right behind them.
You're advocating to have faith that the right would do something they explicitly say they won't do; that they will flip flop on the issue. You'll have to forgive me being cynical on that point. I'm taking them at their word.
Not necessarily flip flopping at the congressional level. To be certain some will not budge. Others already support some type of legalization and will push for it if the will of their constituents demand it. Further, when polled, the "right" is far more reasonable on "normalization" then people give them credit for provided that security comes first. This is obviously the end game for both sides of the issue.
Unfortunately in the primaries they do.
They certainly do in the primaries, but why did the Gang of 8 fall apart and all 8 of them basically disowned their own positions? I'm not asking you to answer that per se, but I don't believe for one second that a pathway is going through with the way things are currently debated. In my mind, Trump needs to be defeated resoundingly to vanquish the alt-right and the ideas that Trump has latched onto related to these topic. Vanquish and salt the earth of its existence. Then maybe the GOP can start moving towards a tenable plan.
The gang of 8 wasn't a security first plan. People don't have faith in "comprehensive" pieces of legislation anymore. Even the more liberal right wingers have come to realize that the voter wants demonstrated enforcement prior to legislating on legalization. This predates the "alt right" as now described so "vanquishing" it will not change the results on this policy.
Donald J. Trump on Wednesday scrapped his previously announced plan to go over results from his most recent physical examination in a taped appearance with the television celebrity Dr. Mehmet Oz, aides to the Republican presidential nominee said.
Instead, Mr. Trump, 70, will appear on the “Dr. Oz Show,” but the two men will have a general discussion about health and wellness, not one anchored to the fitness of one of the two major candidates for president.
Mr. Trump has, over many months, sought to raise questions about the health of his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, 68, and his supporters have flatly claimed that she is hiding something about her health (her aides have strenuously denied this). But Mr. Trump has answered almost no questions about his own health over the last 15 months of his campaign, except for issuing a highly unusual doctor’s note.
So the appearance on Dr. Oz’s show, announced on Friday, had been anticipated as a potential breakthrough, as Mr. Trump’s aides had said that over the next few days he would release results from a physical examination taken last week. It was unclear when those results will be available after the change in approach with Dr. Oz.
When Mr. Trump sought someone in a public forum to talk about his health, he went with Dr. Oz, 56, a kindred spirit — a physician who is not only Republican, but also has spent the last decade attracting an enormous following on television.
The original release from the show about Mr. Trump’s appearance said that Mr. Trump would “share his vision for America’s health” with Dr. Oz, declaring boldly that it would be “a no-holds-barred conversation you’ll be talking about.”
In an interview with Fox News, Dr. Oz said he planned to ask “pointed questions,” but he suggested that most holds would, in fact, be barred.
Leaks from the taping came out today and he is in good health for a 70 year old...cholesterol levels are that of a man in his 20's...he wants to lose 15lbs...he doesn't exercise normally...and that's what came out of the taping
he actually came with to the show with the results from his doctor when before it was discussed that he would not
reading the summary of the taping there wasn't much that came from it that is ground breaking other than he is healthy..they discussed his child care policy and nothing about Clinton
Donald J. Trump on Wednesday scrapped his previously announced plan to go over results from his most recent physical examination in a taped appearance with the television celebrity Dr. Mehmet Oz, aides to the Republican presidential nominee said.
Instead, Mr. Trump, 70, will appear on the “Dr. Oz Show,” but the two men will have a general discussion about health and wellness, not one anchored to the fitness of one of the two major candidates for president.
Mr. Trump has, over many months, sought to raise questions about the health of his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, 68, and his supporters have flatly claimed that she is hiding something about her health (her aides have strenuously denied this). But Mr. Trump has answered almost no questions about his own health over the last 15 months of his campaign, except for issuing a highly unusual doctor’s note.
So the appearance on Dr. Oz’s show, announced on Friday, had been anticipated as a potential breakthrough, as Mr. Trump’s aides had said that over the next few days he would release results from a physical examination taken last week. It was unclear when those results will be available after the change in approach with Dr. Oz.
When Mr. Trump sought someone in a public forum to talk about his health, he went with Dr. Oz, 56, a kindred spirit — a physician who is not only Republican, but also has spent the last decade attracting an enormous following on television.
The original release from the show about Mr. Trump’s appearance said that Mr. Trump would “share his vision for America’s health” with Dr. Oz, declaring boldly that it would be “a no-holds-barred conversation you’ll be talking about.”
In an interview with Fox News, Dr. Oz said he planned to ask “pointed questions,” but he suggested that most holds would, in fact, be barred.
Leaks from the taping came out today and he is in good health for a 70 year old...cholesterol levels are that of a man in his 20's...he wants to lose 15lbs...he doesn't exercise normally...and that's what came out of the taping
he actually came with to the show with the results from his doctor when before it was discussed that he would not
reading the summary of the taping there wasn't much that came from it that is ground breaking other than he is healthy..they discussed his child care policy and nothing about Clinton
If you want to get picky, he's on a Statin. 20 year olds are not on that medication.
Well, it's certainly not a wholehearted endorsement of Trump. It's more of a "the guy's an unqualified idiot, but maybe we consider this aspect of the idea".
What I find strange, though, is that in this piece "the wall" is clearly just a proxy for something else; a larger policy piece, or rather several pieces:
● Change legal immigration criteria to favor employability (a.k.a. skills) over family connections. The emphasis would be on stimulating the nation’s economic growth.
● Require most businesses to belong to E-Verify, the government system that allows employers to check on the immigrant status of potential workers.
● Create a path to legality — and ultimately to citizenship — for the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country.
● Embrace policies — including a wall — that would credibly and dramatically reduce illegal immigration.
The first three points are only glancingly related to construction of a wall and obviously could be implemented without, while the fourth includes the wall among other ideas.
The central argument, though, is that none of the other things are going to get done unless there is agreement to build the wall, because that's apparently what Republicans want. So they're going to prevent movement on any other related policy if they don't get a wall - Without a wall, it’s doubtful that Republicans would enter meaningful negotiations on immigration policy Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the Republican party, either.
The wall is a proxy for "enforcement". The main problem is that conservatives do not trust that anything will be done on the enforcement front. The building of the wall convinces people that the government is finally serious about enforcement which will then softens views about allowing people who are already in the US illegally to stay provided they meet a few basic criteria. It is such a simple issue to solve. Enforcement first.
It's an absurdly expensive, environmentally damaging and internationally divisive "proxy". But I guess some people need things really concrete.
The costs of doing nothing are more, the effect on the environment would be inconsequential, and good fences make good neighbours. The only people who lose are the smugglers.
Well first, I'm glad there's actually a serious discussion on this thread, rather than the shit bag on the Hillary thread about her health. But I do find it a curious argument by Samuelson that the only way to push comprehensive reform forward is by spending 15-25 billion. That seems like a waste of my money. It's not as if there won't be tunnels or any other way around said wall. I am not in favor of the wall to start, but using it as a way to get comprehensive reform makes it silly. Particularly because the GOP's second demand is "No amnesty". I have no faith that their far right flank would allow them to move from this position.
Well that's the problem...no faith. You would be surprised about how much the right flank would be willing to bend if enforcement is verified and a wall is a massive step towards that verification. Of course people will always try to breach the wall in some capacity but it would be far easier for border guards to police a walled border then a non-walled one. People on the right will be far kinder to the 11 million undocumented individuals if they believe that there won't be another 11 million coming right behind them.
You're advocating to have faith that the right would do something they explicitly say they won't do; that they will flip flop on the issue. You'll have to forgive me being cynical on that point. I'm taking them at their word.
Not necessarily flip flopping at the congressional level. To be certain some will not budge. Others already support some type of legalization and will push for it if the will of their constituents demand it. Further, when polled, the "right" is far more reasonable on "normalization" then people give them credit for provided that security comes first. This is obviously the end game for both sides of the issue.
Unfortunately in the primaries they do.
They certainly do in the primaries, but why did the Gang of 8 fall apart and all 8 of them basically disowned their own positions? I'm not asking you to answer that per se, but I don't believe for one second that a pathway is going through with the way things are currently debated. In my mind, Trump needs to be defeated resoundingly to vanquish the alt-right and the ideas that Trump has latched onto related to these topic. Vanquish and salt the earth of its existence. Then maybe the GOP can start moving towards a tenable plan.
The gang of 8 wasn't a security first plan. People don't have faith in "comprehensive" pieces of legislation anymore. Even the more liberal right wingers have come to realize that the voter wants demonstrated enforcement prior to legislating on legalization. This predates the "alt right" as now described so "vanquishing" it will not change the results on this policy.
I'm sorrybut I have not seen any evidence that the far right or base would accept a pathway. Has Trump ever said it? Not to my recollection. He has said we would deport then let them back later, somehow. But that is untenable too.
I believe you may support that position, but I dont recall seeing a lick of evidence from the base or its candidate saying as much.
Donald J. Trump on Wednesday scrapped his previously announced plan to go over results from his most recent physical examination in a taped appearance with the television celebrity Dr. Mehmet Oz, aides to the Republican presidential nominee said.
Instead, Mr. Trump, 70, will appear on the “Dr. Oz Show,” but the two men will have a general discussion about health and wellness, not one anchored to the fitness of one of the two major candidates for president.
Mr. Trump has, over many months, sought to raise questions about the health of his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, 68, and his supporters have flatly claimed that she is hiding something about her health (her aides have strenuously denied this). But Mr. Trump has answered almost no questions about his own health over the last 15 months of his campaign, except for issuing a highly unusual doctor’s note.
So the appearance on Dr. Oz’s show, announced on Friday, had been anticipated as a potential breakthrough, as Mr. Trump’s aides had said that over the next few days he would release results from a physical examination taken last week. It was unclear when those results will be available after the change in approach with Dr. Oz.
When Mr. Trump sought someone in a public forum to talk about his health, he went with Dr. Oz, 56, a kindred spirit — a physician who is not only Republican, but also has spent the last decade attracting an enormous following on television.
The original release from the show about Mr. Trump’s appearance said that Mr. Trump would “share his vision for America’s health” with Dr. Oz, declaring boldly that it would be “a no-holds-barred conversation you’ll be talking about.”
In an interview with Fox News, Dr. Oz said he planned to ask “pointed questions,” but he suggested that most holds would, in fact, be barred.
Leaks from the taping came out today and he is in good health for a 70 year old...cholesterol levels are that of a man in his 20's...he wants to lose 15lbs...he doesn't exercise normally...and that's what came out of the taping
he actually came with to the show with the results from his doctor when before it was discussed that he would not
reading the summary of the taping there wasn't much that came from it that is ground breaking other than he is healthy..they discussed his child care policy and nothing about Clinton
If you want to get picky, he's on a Statin. 20 year olds are not on that medication.
Donald J. Trump on Wednesday scrapped his previously announced plan to go over results from his most recent physical examination in a taped appearance with the television celebrity Dr. Mehmet Oz, aides to the Republican presidential nominee said.
Instead, Mr. Trump, 70, will appear on the “Dr. Oz Show,” but the two men will have a general discussion about health and wellness, not one anchored to the fitness of one of the two major candidates for president.
Mr. Trump has, over many months, sought to raise questions about the health of his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, 68, and his supporters have flatly claimed that she is hiding something about her health (her aides have strenuously denied this). But Mr. Trump has answered almost no questions about his own health over the last 15 months of his campaign, except for issuing a highly unusual doctor’s note.
So the appearance on Dr. Oz’s show, announced on Friday, had been anticipated as a potential breakthrough, as Mr. Trump’s aides had said that over the next few days he would release results from a physical examination taken last week. It was unclear when those results will be available after the change in approach with Dr. Oz.
When Mr. Trump sought someone in a public forum to talk about his health, he went with Dr. Oz, 56, a kindred spirit — a physician who is not only Republican, but also has spent the last decade attracting an enormous following on television.
The original release from the show about Mr. Trump’s appearance said that Mr. Trump would “share his vision for America’s health” with Dr. Oz, declaring boldly that it would be “a no-holds-barred conversation you’ll be talking about.”
In an interview with Fox News, Dr. Oz said he planned to ask “pointed questions,” but he suggested that most holds would, in fact, be barred.
Leaks from the taping came out today and he is in good health for a 70 year old...cholesterol levels are that of a man in his 20's...he wants to lose 15lbs...he doesn't exercise normally...and that's what came out of the taping
he actually came with to the show with the results from his doctor when before it was discussed that he would not
reading the summary of the taping there wasn't much that came from it that is ground breaking other than he is healthy..they discussed his child care policy and nothing about Clinton
If you want to get picky, he's on a Statin. 20 year olds are not on that medication.
They are both fine.
It's not picky. It means his cholesterol is high.
Bad quoting...
I was trying to be non confrontational.... But yes, he definitely has high cholesterol and he has basically gained a pound a year for 40 years. But I certainly don't think THAT disqualifies him.
The only way she beats him for the WH will be by kicking his ass in debates and swings the momentum back her way , as of now his got the wind behind his sails and the polls are showing it ...
The only way she beats him for the WH will be by kicking his ass in debates and swings the momentum back her way , as of now his got the wind behind his sails and the polls are showing it ...
if Hillary was to win this election I would move forward and wait for her to leave and yes probably talk smack about her but I have to wonder what would you all do if Trump wins ? how would you guy's react ? this has been the craziest house race in history and in fact the strategies used buy the media are being used in all political races ...it's pretty dang ugly ! what direction is our political system headed ? and how much rope will the media take before they hang them selves ?
The only way she beats him for the WH will be by kicking his ass in debates and swings the momentum back her way , as of now his got the wind behind his sails and the polls are showing it ...
And him saying stupid crap again. The rate of him doing that lately and his poll rising is no coincidence. Plus, VP is another lesser evil battle. At least Kaine isn't for gay conversion therapy like psycho Pence.
The only way she beats him for the WH will be by kicking his ass in debates and swings the momentum back her way , as of now his got the wind behind his sails and the polls are showing it ...
And him saying stupid crap again. The rate of him doing that lately and his poll rising is no coincidence. Plus, VP is another lesser evil battle. At least Kaine isn't for gay conversion therapy like psycho Pence.
I just listened to his speech at a stop today....he was saying how great the "deplorables" are that Hillary referred to. According to Hillary the deplorables are racists and xenophobes....Trump thinks they are great people?
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Comments
Hilarious...
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Well that's the problem...no faith. You would be surprised about how much the right flank would be willing to bend if enforcement is verified and a wall is a massive step towards that verification. Of course people will always try to breach the wall in some capacity but it would be far easier for border guards to police a walled border then a non-walled one. People on the right will be far kinder to the 11 million undocumented individuals if they believe that there won't be another 11 million coming right behind them.
Don’t compare Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler. It belittles Hitler.
One was a psychopath who believed his raving rants. The other is a con man.
he actually came with to the show with the results from his doctor when before it was discussed that he would not
reading the summary of the taping there wasn't much that came from it that is ground breaking other than he is healthy..they discussed his child care policy and nothing about Clinton
LOL
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
he actually came with to the show with the results from his doctor when before it was discussed that he would not
reading the summary of the taping there wasn't much that came from it that is ground breaking other than he is healthy..they discussed his child care policy and nothing about Clinton
If you want to get picky, he's on a Statin. 20 year olds are not on that medication.
They are both fine.
Genius!
I rewound to make sure I had heard correctly.
She was AWESOME
I believe you may support that position, but I dont recall seeing a lick of evidence from the base or its candidate saying as much.
They are both fine.
It's not picky. It means his cholesterol is high.
Bad quoting...
I was trying to be non confrontational.... But yes, he definitely has high cholesterol and he has basically gained a pound a year for 40 years. But I certainly don't think THAT disqualifies him.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
what would you all do if Trump wins ? how would you guy's react ? this has been the craziest house race in history and in fact the strategies used buy the media are being used in all political races ...it's pretty dang ugly ! what direction is our political system headed ? and how much rope will the media take before they hang them selves ?
Godfather.
Godfather.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/even-with-new-details-trump-still-the-least-transparent-candidate-in-modern-times/2016/09/14/caaa0dba-7a92-11e6-ac8e-cf8e0dd91dc7_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_trumptransparency-925pm:homepage/story
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana