So what, exactly, is the problem at the Southern Border? I'm thinking you do not know
— tim wood

I've followed US-Mexican politics for forty years and lived in Mexico for four and a half years. I've been across the border in San Diego 60 times or so. You are wrong in your assumption that I don't know about the border. You know that fence sticking out into the ocean that you always see pictures of? I've been there. Not that any of this matters, but you're factually wrong about what I know. — fishfry

Great, someone who knows. What is the problem at the Southern Border?

No, among other unsubstantiated claims, you said the Dems support "open borders". Sources/evidence? (Except you can't because it's not true).

how did the Dems get from the Secure Fence Act accompanied by strong anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric, to the present stance of abolishing ICE and having open borders? — fishfry

[My bolding]

I believe the worst the right says about the left... — fishfry

Instead of repeating those lies here, try doing some actual research.

and the worst the left says about the right. — fishfry

Same deal. Do your own research and quote it, and your posts might have some substance instead of sounding like partisan screeds.

(It wouldn't surprise me if the Dems were hypocritical in some way (I agree they are not to be trusted), but they didn't want a "wall" before and they don't want "open borders" now.)

No that is not my argument. That's a strawman. — fishfry

Is it? Or have you just changed the goal posts from Democrat voting behavior to the much more nebulous concept of "rhetoric"? Anyways, let's drop the voting behavior point then and address rhetoric.

The point is that the Dems' current rhetoric is seriously out of alignment with their rhetoric from when they ran the government. — fishfry

I confess I don't follow American politics that closely, nevertheless I am unaware of any major change. Analysing rhetoric is difficult, we'd need a large body of statements and analyze them in detail. I doubt anyone here is prepared to do that. Given that, would you share some examples of what you consider egregious changes of rhetoric?

You do know that Obama deported more Mexicans than Bush did, right? — fishfry

This seems entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

I object to the hypocrisy from the Dems on this issue. The Dems WERE in favor of STRONG border security before Trump showed up. Are you claiming to be unaware of that? — fishfry

Well last I heard, the Democrats were still in favor of providing lots of money for border security measures, just not for the wall.

Was anyone in the thread going "Rah! Rah! Democrats"? I haven't read every post so I don't know.

In general, the only immigration restrictions I'd have, anywhere in the world, would be that I'm okay with screening for wanted criminals or people with significant associations with known terrorists.

Great, someone who knows. What is the problem at the Southern Border? — tim wood

Tim, you said there's no need for a wall. So do you think there's a need for a fence? What do you want to do about the existing 600 miles of fence? Tear some or all of it down? Add more as long as it's a fence and not a wall? Is this a Trump-bashing thread or a discussion of US-Mexico border policy, a situation that goes back to the Bracero program of the 1930's? Do you think there should be any international borders at all? After all, some people are one-worlders and don't believe in borders. When you say there's no need for a wall, is that what you mean? Do you think having 12-20 million people living in the shadows in the US is a good idea? Do you favor intelligent immigration reform? Or just Trump-bashing?

In general, the only immigration restrictions I'd have, anywhere in the world, would be that I'm okay with screening for wanted criminals or people with significant associations with known terrorists. — Terrapin Station

Ok! That's a direct answer. Not from @Tim Wood whom I originally directed the question to. But it's a response. You would say a wall is wrong, because you don't want strong borders. Which is perfectly fine, it's a coherent position that goes beyond, "Trump is a liar therefore we don't need a wall." That's what @Tim Wood wrote and it's the point I challenged him on.

But ok, weak semi-open borders. Screen for criminals. Consider this not-so-hypothetical. An adult shows up at the border with a child. They have no paperwork. The adult says, "This is my kid." You are a US customs agent. You have two choices:

* Let them into the country. Oops, you just turned a child over to a trafficker. Think it can't happen? Obama did it a lot, to avoid the bad optics of "separating families." From the WaPo, hardly a right wing rag I hope you'll agree. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/obama-administration-placed-children-with-human-traffickers-report-says/2016/01/28/39465050-c542-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html

* Or, detain the adult and the kid separately for a few weeks until you can determine the truth of the matter via DNA or perhaps an inquiry to their claimed home country for some paperwork. That sounds sensible. But now your political opponents start screeching about "ripping babies from their mothers' arms," and everyone hates you.

So, what do you do when and adult and a kid show up with no paperwork? Let the adult into the country with the child, no questions asked? Or detain them separately till you can determine whether that's a family or a trafficker with their victim?

I hope you don't think this is a hypothetical. It happens every day. Obama looked at the political optics and kept the children with their traffickers, repeatedly. Trump chose to try to verify the claims and got excoriated by the left.

What do you think?

If we're screening for criminals/known terrorists/associates, then you'd need papers--otherwise, if people didn't need papers, we'd not be able to screen for anything. Also, presumably it's not the easiest thing to just fake the papers, or again the screening would be useless in general, and there would be no point in even doing it. If it turns out to be useless in general, then what are we even doing with any border security at all, aside from checking bags to make sure that criminal items--like bombs, endangered animals/animal parts, etc.-- aren't being brought in just then? (Which by the way, I'm okay with checking, but I forgot to specify that)

But, let's pretend that, say, it's easy to fake the papers for the child trafficker, but not for other stuff.

I would just let the child trafficker with good faked papers go through, yes.

If we were talking about a child trafficker moving a kid from Belle Glade, Florida to Jacksonville, or even Newark, New Jersey to LA, then of course they'd not need any papers whatsoever. Nobody's checking anything there. Nobody's screening anything. And I don't want everyone checked whenever they travel anywhere.

I can see some merit to checking or screening people occasionally (such as when they cross a national border) to try to catch some criminals or terroristic threats, but I'd be far more easily persuaded to not even do that than I would be to force people to be held while we check their DNA just because they're traveling between countries rather than across the street or from city to city or state to state.

Just for background, by the way, I consider myself a "libertarian socialist." On the libertarian side, I'm basically a minarchist. The socialist stuff comes from disagreeing with the libertarian embrace of free-market capitalism as the official economy. I'd institute a very different, government-overseen system where the competition for scarcer resources is based on providing both the basics for everyone and the things that people want, which we'd learn via regular polling. I'm kind of a laissez-faire hippie, with the hippie side being attracted to helping people other out communally. Re borders,I think that ideally, we wouldn't even have different countries.

What is the problem at the Southern Border? — tim wood

It's a "problem" which has no solution. It has no solution because the exact nature of "the problem" cannot even be formulated in a universally acceptable way. So "the problem" itself is a phantom problem. People like us sit around discussing "the problem", and it makes the problem seem very real, something dreadful which needs to be addressed. But all there really is, is difference of opinion as to what "the problem" is, and this is a problem, but it's not "the problem", and that is a problem because instead of talking about the real problem we talk about "the problem"..

I don't agree with Trump's policies regarding the Mexican border. — fishfry

Could you explain why you don’t agree with Trump’s border policy?

This is not a Trump or anti-Trump post. This is about the politics of the US-Mexico border. — fishfry

What is your vision?

It's a "problem" which has no solution. It has no solution because the exact nature of "the problem" cannot even be formulated in a universally acceptable way. So "the problem" itself is a phantom problem. — Metaphysician Undercover

Far easier to declare victory on fictional problems, or more precisely, delusional solutions (as if a wall will solve things) than to create real solutions to real problems. Like Trump's first national emergency, to tackle the opioid crisis. So, how things have gone after that declaration?

Just remember how "Make America Great Again" was solved: America was great again when Trump came into power.

Democrats supported the wall in 2006 when it was a fence — fishfry

So they didn’t support a wall; they supported a fence.

Reminds me of that time when the commies built that fence in Berlin. The Dems were all for that too.

Then they let this happen. Hypocrites.

Fun fact, I was in East Berlin the night the wall came down.

:cool:

Tim, you said there's no need for a wall. — fishfry

Did I? If I did I'll stand by it. I thought I said "No wall." All I get is the news, and that seems conclusive. What problem does the wall solve?

So do you think there's a need for a fence?

In my opinion, a problem cannot be solved until and unless it is understood - and that is not as easy as it sounds. There's the textbook example of a downtown office building where people complained of slow elevators. Do you think from that you understand what the problem is? The "problem" was studied until it was understood. What do you think the solution was? See the end of the post*. And the heart of this is quality improvement - what makes things better? Is it necessary to "solve" the problem? Or better to simply make it cease to exist?

What do you want to do about the existing 600 miles of fence? Tear some or all of it down? Add more as long as it's a fence and not a wall? Is this a Trump-bashing thread or a discussion of US-Mexico border policy, a situation that goes back to the Bracero program of the 1930's? Do you think there should be any international borders at all? After all, some people are one-worlders and don't believe in borders. When you say there's no need for a wall, is that what you mean? Do you think having 12-20 million people living in the shadows in the US is a good idea? Do you favor intelligent immigration reform? Or just Trump-bashing?

Breathe, fishfry. Sit down if you're feeling light-headed. But also let's get real. The President of the United States of America has declared a national emergency for the United State of America, because of "problems" on "the Southern border." You claim knowledge of the border and its problems. Are you aware of any border problems whatsoever that might give warrant to Trump's claims? Especially after every responsible source of information puts the lie to everything he says?

As to "Trump bashing," what do you mean by that? Do you mean by "Trump-bashing" the concerns people - lots of people - have about almost everything Trump, his lies, scams, actions, possible motivations, and to be sure, likely crimes - across a lifetime? If these, I'd argue more bashing, a lot more, in indictments, arrests, trials, convictions, and if he hits the big casino, treason, maybe even hanging. Or maybe you like sucking on whatever cock someone puts in front of you. That's Trump: he uses, abuses, and hurts people - even the bad people who try to keep up with him. If attempting to call him out on it is Trump-bashing; if that's what you cal it, then I think you need to get your US citizenship refreshed and renewed.

And there's at least one historical precedent, 1928-1935 Germany, in which a maniac pushed the limits. Trump's no Hitler, but why do you imagine he's pushing a national emergency when there is none, and his is a manifest fiction. Why on earth do you imagine he'd do that? For the same reason there are all the lies. Not for the immediate result, but for the long term destruction of truth and reason. And who would be interested in the long term destruction of these bulwarks of freedom? Anyone come to mind?

Trump is serious and dangerous evil. I question whether most people grasp that.

*Turns out there was nothing wrong with the elevators, but the lobby was terminally boring. Solution? Mirrors were installed so that folks could pass the waiting time looking at themselves and each other. And the complaint stopped.

Present solutions to problems of immigration strongly suggest that folks are more interested in posturing that in in solving.

ou would say a wall is wrong, because you don't want strong borders. Which is perfectly fine, it's a coherent position that goes beyond, "Trump is a liar therefore we don't need a wall." That's what Tim Wood wrote and it's the point I challenged him on. — fishfry

Please demonstrate how Trump's wall makes for a strong border. And you need to practice your English comprehension. The point about Trump's lies is that as lies, they have no merit with respect to any discussion - and if they just are the argument, then there is no argument. That is, Trump's rhetoric removes him from any consideration as to the merits of any wall. But in addition, his rhetoric is toxic, tending to disrupt and destroy reason and reasonable discussion. If you're a Trump fan, please make clear how his rhetoric is beneficial.

Predictions on how the emergency declaration will play out? (Especially from a legal/constitutional point of view). @Hanover? @Ciceronianus the White?

Ladders, tunnels, boats, planes, and more are all readily available technologies, so even if a complete border wall was erected, immigrants would still make it through.

One of the main problems is that the border is too big to protect with a wall, and once walls are built around the current hot-spots (if it makes crossing hard enough) then the coyotes will just find new places to cross.

It won't slow down drugs, but it might slow down human traffic for a time, but probably not significantly.

But the point is that the goal of the proposal is not to "prevent [illegal] immigration", it is rather to raise the costs associated with it

History seems to suggest that, if demand remains constant, then increased costs to firms tend to be passed onto consumers. A wall will absolutely raise operating costs for the cartels, but just as absolutely that increased cost will be passed onto those who consume the cartels' products. Meaning, the cartels are going to raise their prices.

Every border crossing will suddenly be twice as lucrative for every coyote, and consequently there will be increased incentive to secure product through violence. Anyone who thinks the wall will necessarily make the border safer because it makes the border more difficult to cross has not been paying attention to the past.

(I know you're not making the argument that increased cost->increased safety, I'm just using your comment as a spring board to head off those who do)

My knee jerk reaction is that it is an unforgivable and unconstitutional act.

The thinking is that relief funds for Puerto Rico and other disaster areas are going to be re-routed for the border wall. I wonder how much suffering and unnecessary loss of life this could lead to? If those relief funds are meant to secure power, access to hospitals and medicine, access to nutrition, access to education, etc, then the president is trading lives for nothing. In his on words, the "border situation" is not a time-sensitive emergency: "I didn’t have to do this, but I’d rather do it much faster."

I wonder how much suffering and unnecessary loss of life this could lead to? — VagabondSpectre

This is Trump's leitmotif, hurting people. We are way past the time to wonder about it - wondering is a luxury with a high price tag. For some time now it's been a question of what to do about it. Law is good and right, but slow. Legislation is good, but Republicans in Congress are a craven and venal lot. It's time and passed time for a letter campaign to reps in Congress, and calls, and letters of any kind that might seem useful to anyone useful. Even to the bad guys. They need at least to know that they are a source of disgust because of their lies and anti-American behavior.

I’m no lawyer but given that he explained it like this...

I could do the wall over a longer period of time, I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster. And I don't have to do it for the election; I've already done a lot of wall for the election 2020. And the only reason we're up here talking about this is because of the election, because they want to try and win an election which it looks like they're not going to be able to do.

And this is one of the ways they think they can possibly win is by obstruction and a lot of other nonsense. And I think that I just want to get it done faster, that's all.

... I doubt any reasonable court is going to accept the claim that it’s a national emergency.

(I know you're not making the argument that increased cost->increased safety, I'm just using your comment as a spring board to head off those who do) — Bliss

:up:

I could have gotten ice-cream later, but I want it now: Ergo National Emergency!

But then my question is really, can he get away with it (can the court's really stop him)? Or is it just he's been reading Breitbart and realized he'd lose about half his base if he didn't make like he really wanted to deliver on the wall at all costs (even though he knows he can't)?

What aspects of Trump’s wall could work? Could it really prevent immigration? — Franklin

Forgive me, but I suggest the entire immigration debate be replaced with this question...

How many human beings do we want living in America?

The population of America has doubled in my lifetime. Is that good? Is that bad? What goal are we aiming for?

Please observe how immigration is being discussed around the clock for years now on every media outlet, and this simple obvious common sense bottom line question never gets asked, let alone answered.

Should we build a wall? How the hell is anybody supposed to answer that without us having the slightest clue how many people we want living in America?

How many human beings do we want living in America? — Jake

No one is asking that outside the right wing because it's a ridiculous question. (I'm not calling you right wing, that's just who actually asks this question in nearly all cases)

From a straightforward economic perspective, more people increases the amount of people contributing to the economy. The jobs these people are able to more easily attain are not jobs native born Americans tend to go for, so "we" aren't losing jobs to them and our economy is already hilariously dependent on them anyway. They cannot take out of programs like Social Security despite paying into them, so the "social parasite welfare queen" idea of bunk.

The wall itself is utterly useless. Not only would it cost stupid amounts of money just to start building ($60-$70 Billion in all likelihood, and that doesn't count upkeep), most of the border can't be feasibly walled off due to the terrain. It would also require eminent domaining the hell out of people's land, which will take an era to go through the courts for that alone. Add on the fact immigration is at a 20 year low and the commit fewer crimes on average than citizens, you're just looking at a "problem" that the wall is a idiotic and massively disproportionate response to, just like it has always been.

So no, it doesn't "work" because it's justification is based on lies and even if it were based on truths the wall doesn't stop people from borrowing a tall ladder and hopping it (or just going to an area known to be unsuitable for a wall and entering that way).

No one is asking that outside the right wing because it's a ridiculous question. — MindForged

Ah ok then, so 84 billion people, or any other number, would be perfectly fine for America.

I'm not arguing for any specific number, I'm arguing that it's not possible to have a coherent opinion or policy on immigration without asking this question.

There are some challenges involved in "more the merrier". As example, here in Florida, where the population has exploded in recent decades. Most of the roads (especially along the coasts) have already been widened as much as they can be without knocking down trillions of dollars worth of existing structures. And the folks from elsewhere keep on coming, keep on coming, keep on coming.

But there are advantages to a larger population as well, for example, competing with China.

You're doing what everybody else is doing, chanting your preferred political dogmas on immigration while ignoring the larger question of what our population goal is.

If we want to have many more people in America then the wall is stupid. If we feel we already have way too many people, then the wall makes some sense.

The point here is that it's not possible to have an intelligent position on immigration unless we have some idea where we're trying to go. And we have no idea because we aren't smart enough to even ask the question. Thus, by burping up all kinds of fabricated gibberish Trump is doing a good job of representing the country he was elected to serve.

How many human beings do we want living in America? — Jake

No one is asking that outside the right wing because it's a ridiculous question.

It's definitely a question that moves us in the right direction, because it highlights the false dichotomy between immigration and having children - both are simply means by which the population of a country increases. When we're asking if we want immigration, what we're really asking is if we want an increased population size.

The answer is almost always yes: if a state cannot profit off a citizen paying taxes, then that state shouldn't exist anyway. Saying the state should limit immigration is like saying a store should limit the number of customers it sells to.

There are some challenges involved in "more the merrier". As example, here in Florida, where the population has exploded in recent decades. Most of the roads (especially along the coasts) have already been widened as much as they can be without knocking down trillions of dollars worth of existing structures

The "almost" from my previous paragraph follows from this kind of argument: if adding another citizen necessarily reduces living conditions by an amount greater than the gain caused by the additional citizen, then the additional citizen should be rejected. This is analogous to a store which is operating at max capacity - it would love to accept additional customers, but it can't without ruining it for the current customers.

That said, such a store would, of course, choose to expand such that it could accommodate, and profit off, more customers. Similarly, a nation can expand (new housing, new roads, etc) to accommodate new people should it find that accepting new citizens reduces living conditions. The U.S. is nowhere near capacity, and therefore should not reject new citizens.