Trump

[Chips]

With the current trend in illegal immigration and its continued decline, the argument for the "need" for a border wall between the US and Mexico is losing its justifications. So, now, it's all about "drugs," right?

Highly doubt it's about drugs...

"[Now] well over 95% of the drugs are moving on the water via container ships, non-commercial vessels, pleasure boats, sail boats, fishing boats. They also have fast boats which try to outrun our law enforcement assets.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34934574

Drugs, like most trade, goes via the sea.

[Morkonan]

With the current trend in illegal immigration and its continued decline, the argument for the "need" for a border wall between the US and Mexico is losing its justifications. So, now, it's all about "drugs," right?

Highly doubt it's about drugs...

"[Now] well over 95% of the drugs are moving on the water via container ships, non-commercial vessels, pleasure boats, sail boats, fishing boats. They also have fast boats which try to outrun our law enforcement assets.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34934574

Drugs, like most trade, goes via the sea.

I agree. However, there is a growing argument, now, that we need to build a wall to keep out illegal drugs as well as illegal immigrants.

Well, illegal immigration has been on the decline in recent years. So, if the original argument was to build a wall to prevent illegal immigration, then that argument has been losing credibility as well, right?

But, if the argument shifts and it's now about illegal drugs, a high-profile subject, it won't lose its alarming credibility until people realize that most illegal drugs coming into this country aren't transported by mules across desert borders, which is how some people see this happening.

It's about building a monument. That's what people in favor of some huge edifice stretching thousands of miles actually want. They want something tangible that represents whatever meaning they've applied to it, be it some feeling of "Nationalism," a political belief system or just the plain ol' "Screw <insert people, political party, nation, race, culture here>."

And, the excuses to provide that monument will keep on coming until they're either exhausted or it gets built.

[Chips]

It's an easily refuted falsehood.

But US Politics is all about Democrat vs Republican, and you can say anything - they will support/believe/adhere to party lines and refuse to question it.

$19 billion dollars for an unnecessary lie. People support keeping out migrants, why start bringing a drugs argument that's BS into it.

It's US politics. Not surprised whatsoever.

[Observe]

$19 billion dollars for an unnecessary lie. People support keeping out migrants, why start bringing a drugs argument that's BS into it.

I don't buy the drug reason for a wall. From what I understand, the biggest drug addiction problem in the U.S. is from pharmaceutical opiates. I suppose we get quite a cocaine from the South America, but the demand for that drug, is seeing a downward turn anyway.

We used to get a lot of marijuana from Mexico, but with legalization, most of the pot is produced and consumed locally. A wall won't affect cannabis availability.

It's not about drugs, so let's not pretend that it is.

[Ketraar]

It's not about drugs, so let's not pretend that it is.

Well it was also never about immigration, that didnt stop them to pretent though.

In reality I think its just the usual pandering to fears and stereotypes and its much easier to paint "a devil" to which you can point to, than trying to explain complex socio-economics to people, that frankly have more pressing and probably immediate problems. Seeing as many of these people were fed false hope and illusions (in many forms) or crave to a rose-tinted past that only exists in their minds, will just make it easy for abuse. Especially so if the general approach to any discussion not confirming ones opinion is met with the standard debate technique of: "llaalalalalaalaaa humbug fake news!!" and the like.

Critical thinking went down the drain ages ago, now we fork the bill.

MFG

Ketraar

[Observe]

It's not about drugs, so let's not pretend that it is.

Well it was also never about immigration, that didn't stop them to pretend though.

Very true.

I do recognize that there are problems associated with undocumented workers, but Instead of a wall, perhaps we should sentence business owners who hire illegals to prison, or confiscate their businesses.

[Nanook]

$19 billion dollars for an unnecessary lie. People support keeping out migrants, why start bringing a drugs argument that's BS into it.

I don't buy the drug reason for a wall. From what I understand, the biggest drug addiction problem in the U.S. is from pharmaceutical opiates. ....

No, it starts with pharmaceutical opiates and progresses to heroin because heroin is much easier to obtain. Heroin is currently the number one problem, followed by meth and cocaine.

[RegisterMe]

Popcorn time.

[Santi]

The wall makes sense (and not) in many ways. In one hand we are at a dead end regarding immigration, there are very negative sentiments towards it not only in the USA but also in Europe too, we all have been witness to the rise of xenophobia among a very significant part of the population. The result of a financial crisis and a huge influx of immigrants.

Angela Merkel has paid dearly in the latest elections for letting 500k immigrants into Germany, immigration and border control was crucial for the Brexit camp, and Trump very successfully tapped that anti immigrant sentiment to secure the Presidency.

So policies like investing 10 billion in immigration education, support or integration is something that is not going to go down too well, especially while we are still recovering from the 2007 financial crisis.

So here comes the wall, not only is an electoral promise, it will also help to reduce that rising xenophobia, more importantly it is infrastructure, huge infrastructure that will generate many jobs and benefit many business in those zones more "hardly hit" by that illegal immigration.

Do they USA really need 33 billion (18 billion for the wall) to secure the border? Not really, but it is great electoral business.

[RegisterMe]

If you look at it as an "infrastructure investment" that money would be far better spent on America's real infrastructure - bridges, motorways, rail track, crappy airports, public buildings etc.

[Golden_Gonads]

The wall makes sense (and not) in many ways. In one hand we are at a dead end regarding immigration.

I said earlier that migration via Mexico was at a 10 year low. It seems I lied. It is in fact at an all time, since records began low. Educate people as to this fact and BOOM! 20 Billion dollars saved! As a side note, 58% of immigrants over the border were from countries other than Mexico, so folks from the rest of Central/South America.

[Ketraar]

Angela Merkel has paid dearly in the latest elections for letting 500k immigrants into Germany, immigration and border control was crucial for the Brexit camp, and Trump very successfully tapped that anti immigrant sentiment to secure the Presidency.

Well I'm not the greatest Merkel fan, but is that not what people crave in a politician? That they act based on conviction and not hunting for votes? Yes she lost votes for doing the right thing, that made me like her, that some people didnt comes to no surprise, based on those sentiments you mentioned. But you have to make a distinction between what people feel and what is law. Again, politics is not a popularity contest, at least it shouldn't be. So I think the Merkel example backfires imho.

MFG

Ketraar

[BugMeister]

The wall makes sense (and not) in many ways. In one hand we are at a dead end regarding immigration, there are very negative sentiments towards it not only in the USA but also in Europe too, we all have been witness to the rise of xenophobia among a very significant part of the population. The result of a financial crisis and a huge influx of immigrants.

Angela Merkel has paid dearly in the latest elections for letting 500k immigrants into Germany, immigration and border control was crucial for the Brexit camp, and Trump very successfully tapped that anti immigrant sentiment to secure the Presidency.

So policies like investing 10 billion in immigration education, support or integration is something that is not going to go down too well, especially while we are still recovering from the 2007 financial crisis.

So here comes the wall, not only is an electoral promise, it will also help to reduce that rising xenophobia, more importantly it is infrastructure, huge infrastructure that will generate many jobs and benefit many business in those zones more "hardly hit" by that illegal immigration.

Do they USA really need 33 billion (18 billion for the wall) to secure the border? Not really, but it is great electoral business.

- you forget that Trump's speciality is beauty contests..
- popularity, beauty - call it what you like

- it's NOT a political asset..

[Santi]

If you look at the timeline, Merkel, well Europe, didn't do the right thing. I remember very well how a refugee crisis was predicted, we did have several posts here discussing the refugee crisis (refugee thread, greece thread, syria thread etc...) Most of us were suggesting the right thing, to create a safe zone within syria where people could find refuge and decent standards of living (water, education, food etc.) Nothing was done by Europe.

When Greece was being flooded with refugees departing from Libya same things were proposed and nothing was done by Europe, later Italy was flooded too. Till when the refugees overwhelmed Hungary, and only then, and because Hungary was ferrying the refugees to the border with Austria did Merkel took on them.

And worst, it fuelled the rise of the far right. That means immigrants today, mass deportations tomorrow like is happening in the USA.

In my opinion people is ignoring the fact that there is a problem with immigration, and that is the wrong attitude because we are not fixing it in the best way possible. Everybody is talking about the low levels of immigration into the USA like the problem is waning and do not exist. Figures?

Almost 11 million illegal immigrants in the USA, around 400000 people overstayed their tourist or transit Visa, 300000 were apprehended in the South border, no figures for those that did make it across, figures for 2016.

Do this 11 million people going to have a pension? Are covered with medical insurance? Are protected by the legal system? It is a huge problem for them and the more money you pour to fix those issues, right now increases xenophobia in a wide sector of society (that votes).

The right thing to do will be to give the papers to those working and with families in the USA, but we have let the problem fester so much (over 50% of the USA population supports Trump immigration policies), that right now we need to lower down the negative sentiment towards immigrants before we can do the right thing. Otherwise, that over 50% of the population against immigration will vote someone worse than even Trump, that offers a quick and nasty fix to the problem.

[Bishop149]

Oooo a bit of data visualisation!

Mr Trump is very fond of the maps like the one below, apparently he has one framed and hanging up in the White House and likes to hand them out to people he meets. It's easy to see why, all that red, Trump landslide right?
https://i.redd.it/cjfup34tbh0y.png

Well of course not, we here are all smart enough to realise that its unadjusted for population. I've seem all sorts of weird distorted maps to correct this but I think today's xkcd's effort which is my favourite to date.
https://xkcd.com/1939/large/

[Ketraar]

Obviously Europe handled the whole refugee crysis (and still is) poorly, thats not even a debate. In fact that Merkel was the only one to actually have a concrete stance on was both surprising and welcome. Again, I'm not really a fan, but one can recognise when some one did something of worth, despite not agreeing with the rest (or most of it).

Related to the US immigration (and mostly applicable anywhere else), many companies survive due to said immigration and exploitation of people desperate enough to accept it. Its hardly a problem by immigrants, their strive to improve their lives is a capitalistic sentiment as it gets. Its rather uncapitalistic (made up word, but you get the idea) to have a business rely on cheating the system and not following the rules. As proposed earlier in this very topic, make sure companies bide by the rules and only employ people following the law and paying standard wages.

Still I like to mention that its not the same thing to talk about immigration and refugees, I know people like to associate both, but that is not a debate either. Refugees have rights that are clearly defined within the UN charter and countries that signed it just need to follow their rules, you can debate the logistics of it, but NEVER at the expense of the refugees.

MFG

Ketraar

[BugMeister]

- hmmm...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... nn-simpson

"Last week Simpson, a former journalist, requested that the committee release
the transcript in an op-ed in the New York Times, writing: 'the public still has
much to learn about a man with the most troubling business past of any
United States president.'”


- no kiddin'

[Bishop149]

I believe that if you translate the following (in a response from Michael Wolff's lawyers to demands and threats from Trump's lawyers) from legalese into English it basically amounts to:

"Bring it b***hes!"

Lastly, the majority of your letter - indeed, seven full pages - is devoted to instructing Henery Holt and Mr Wolff in meticulous detail about their obligations to preserve documents that relate in any way to the book, the article, President Trump, his family members, their businesses and his Presdiential campaign. While my clients do not adopt or subcribe to your description of their legal obligations, Henery Holt and Mr. Wolff will comply with any and all document preservation obligations that the law imposes on them.
At the same time, we must remind you that President Trump, in his personal and governmental capacity, must comply with the same legal obligations regarding himself, his family members, their businesses, the Trump campaign, and his administration, and must ensure all appropriate measures such documents are in place.
This would include any and all documents pertaining to any of the matters about which the book reports.
Should you pursue litigation against Henry Holt or Mr. Wolff, we are quite confident that documents related to the contents of the book in the possession of President Trump, his family members, his businesses, his campaign, and his administration will prove particularly relevant to our defense.

[fiksal]

I believe that if you translate the following (in a response from Michael Wolff's lawyers to demands and threats from Trump's lawyers) from legalese into English it basically amounts to:

"Bring it b***hes!"

I approve of that translation.

[kohlrak]

Obviously Europe handled the whole refugee crysis (and still is) poorly, thats not even a debate. In fact that Merkel was the only one to actually have a concrete stance on was both surprising and welcome. Again, I'm not really a fan, but one can recognise when some one did something of worth, despite not agreeing with the rest (or most of it).

Related to the US immigration (and mostly applicable anywhere else), many companies survive due to said immigration and exploitation of people desperate enough to accept it. Its hardly a problem by immigrants, their strive to improve their lives is a capitalistic sentiment as it gets. Its rather uncapitalistic (made up word, but you get the idea) to have a business rely on cheating the system and not following the rules. As proposed earlier in this very topic, make sure companies bide by the rules and only employ people following the law and paying standard wages.

Still I like to mention that its not the same thing to talk about immigration and refugees, I know people like to associate both, but that is not a debate either. Refugees have rights that are clearly defined within the UN charter and countries that signed it just need to follow their rules, you can debate the logistics of it, but NEVER at the expense of the refugees.

MFG

Ketraar

Precisely, so if the left wants to raise the minimum wage, the left merely have to close the borders.

The reason the two topics are combined is because the refugees are largely from the middle-east, and we have legitimate fears of threat vectors from the middle-east through our southern border.