President Trump's Rumored Potential Border Wall Deal Sounds Like Disastrous 1986 Immigration Comprom

[Hoodat]

Oh, but, my friend, you are wrong there.  @libertybele suggested it back on this very thread.

I went back and reviewed @libertybele 's posts.  Nowhere did she advocate a military option.  Her only comment was to point out one of many options already available to the President - options which you reject outright.  It was disingenuous, if not outright dishonest of you to smear libertybele this way, especially after being cited for this already on this thread:

You oh wise one @Emjay, who is all knowing and re-interprets what the President is doing  ; DO NOT put words in my mouth nor make assumptions.  I have in no way withdrawn my support for President Trump and his stance on the border wall.  I stand very adamant on NO amnesty and not compromising our sovereignty.  IF you see that as withdrawing support for Trump's wall so be it.  I'll be damn if I give anyone a pass who would compromise on the sovereignty of this country.

You don't seem to comprehend the ramifications of amnesty, DACA, Dreamers, etc., on our country.  I've explained it before, I've laid out the stats numerous times.  If you don't agree or understand, that's fine.  However, don't sit and tell people what I do or do not stand for.

[edpc]

As has been mentioned before, the military is limited to action at the border, due to the Posse Comitatus Act. That’s because, currently, defense of the border is a matter of US law. Forces cannot be used to enforce law, unless certain conditions are met.

The only ways to use the military to defend the border as some would like is to:

A) Declare a state of war.

B) Seize border land and make it military base property.

Neither is likely to occur.

[Hoodat]

As has been mentioned before, the military is limited to action at the border, due to the Posse Comitatus Act. That’s because, currently, defense of the border is a matter of US law. Forces cannot be used to enforce law, unless certain conditions are met.

The only ways to use the military to defend the border as some would like is to:

A) Declare a state of war.

B) Seize border land and make it military base property.

Neither is likely to occur.

Which is why @libertybele didn't propose doing it.

[edpc]

Which is why @libertybele didn't propose doing it.

I didn’t catch that, either, but it has been advocated by some here in other threads. That should dispel the notion about it happening.

[Emjay]

I went back and reviewed @libertybele 's posts.  Nowhere did she advocate a military option.  Her only comment was to point out one of many options already available to the President - options which you reject outright.  It was disingenuous, if not outright dishonest of you to smear libertybele this way, especially after being cited for this already on this thread:

Look @Hoodat  I don't want to fight with you but I'm trying to figure out your agenda.  As for @libertybele I don't want to fight with her either but y'all are being disingenuous in sniping at Trump because he is trying to settle this thing in a way he deems practical.

And I do not adore Trump as you insinuated, but I do admire him and I think you guys could never find a leader as passionate as Trump is on this issue.

I don't reject any options outright but I also know that Trump is aware of all the options available to him and is trying to get a bill passed.  I know he will use those options in the future and he has already tried to do so.

I just see no point in the constant second guessing and sniping at the one person who wants what we want.

[jpsb]

Your bleeding heart rewards those who cheat with no consequences when later caught.

Always with the personal insults?

I am being a realist. Should the GOP adopt the policies you advocate they'd be a minority party for generations.

So you want to deport someone brought here as a two year old, that served in the Army, a combat vet
that is now a college educated STEM worker? Good luck with that.

[Emjay]

Look @Hoodat  I don't want to fight with you but I'm trying to figure out your agenda.  As for @libertybele I don't want to fight with her either but y'all are being disingenuous in sniping at Trump because he is trying to settle this thing in a way he deems practical.

And I do not adore Trump as you insinuated, but I do admire him and I think you guys could never find a leader as passionate as Trump is on this issue.

I don't reject any options outright but I also know that Trump is aware of all the options available to him and is trying to get a bill passed.  I know he will use those options in the future and he has already tried to do so.

I just see no point in the constant second guessing and sniping at the one person who wants what we want.

And, I would add @Hoodat that if there is a political component in the way Trump has chosen to deal with this, I am okay with that and you should be also.

We know that Trump will run in 2020 and we know what a disaster it would be if any of the proposed democrat candidates win.

[GrouchoTex]

Like the title of the article says "President Trump's Rumored Potential Border Wall Deal Sounds Like Disastrous 1986 Immigration Compromise", I worry about it, too.

I think that lead us, along with lack of action since, to where we find ourselves today.

We tend to think that DACA only applies to those who have come across the southern border illegally.
Could this lead to others who were brought over illegally as children from the northern border with Canada wanting the same treatment?
Children and families are also smuggled in via ship, from Asia?
What about dreamers that find themselves here due to visa overstays by their parents?
Does this ever really end, or encourage more of the same?
What safe guards will be in place to insure that we won't be talking about this in 30 more years, with even greater numbers?

It's a legitimate concern.

[Emjay]

Like the title of the article says "President Trump's Rumored Potential Border Wall Deal Sounds Like Disastrous 1986 Immigration Compromise", I worry about it, too.

I think that lead us, along with lack of action since, to where we find ourselves today.

We tend to think that DACA only applies to those who have come across the southern border illegally.
Could this lead to others who were brought over illegally as children from the northern border with Canada wanting the same treatment?
Children and families are also smuggled in via ship, from Asia?
What about dreamers that find themselves here due to visa overstays by their parents?
Does this ever really end, or encourage more of the same?
What safe guards will be in place to insure that we won't be talking about this in 30 more years, with even greater numbers?

It's a legitimate concern.

Yes, it is, but not a devastating one.  Because the dreamers are here now and they are a mixed group and this would only extend their stay for three years.

If the democrats somehow discredit Trump enough to get a win in 2020, the Lord only knows what we'll be talking about in 30 years or even 10 years.

[DB]

Always with the personal insults?

I am being a realist. Should the GOP adopt the policies you advocate they'd be a minority party for generations.

So you want to deport someone brought here as a two year old, that served in the Army, a combat vet
that is now a college educated STEM worker? Good luck with that.

Always?

Not even remotely true.

Your "realism" is the cause of the problem. That thinking creates a moral hazard that causes the situation to occur in the first place. The sooner you recognize that the sooner people will stop trying to take advantage of that hazard and future suffering in great numbers will come to an end.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I didn’t catch that, either, but it has been advocated by some here in other threads. That should dispel the notion about it happening.

I suggested we should stage a southern invasion "drill", build a wall, and then leave the Dems to fund its removal.

[Emjay]

Always?

Not even remotely true.

Your "realism" is the cause of the problem. That thinking creates a moral hazard that causes the situation to occur in the first place. The sooner you recognize that the sooner people will stop trying to take advantage of that hazard and future suffering in great numbers will come to an end.

I have no idea what you just said, but the democrats in the House are doubling down and demanding permanent acceptance of DACA.

We have to choose our side.

[Hoodat]

I suggested we should stage a southern invasion "drill", build a wall, and then leave the Dems to fund its removal.

That is going to be my approach with my new Democrat Congresswoman.  In order to get the government running again, I will suggest that she go ahead and give Trump the $5 billion because walls don't last.  They can tear it down later to much fanfare and celebration just like they did in Berlin.

Hope it works.

[roamer_1]

We have to choose our side.

The hell we do.

[Axeslinger]

Just once in my life, I sure would like the issue to be framed:

As soon as you give us the money for the wall, we’ll give you DACA.


And then after it passes we can be like the Dems and say, “yeah about that...screw you”

[Hoodat]

We have to choose our side.

I already chose the Conservative approach. 

-  Prosecute deportees who re-cross our border.
-  Stop catch-and-release of asylum seekers.
-  Stop giving out free stuff to illegals.


And clearly, you are not on board with any of that.

[edpc]

I have no idea what you just said, but the democrats in the House are doubling down and demanding permanent acceptance of DACA.

We have to choose our side.

Trump already has. He loves the DACA ‘kids.’ It’s not just Democrats we have to worry about. Oh, wait...he was one.

[Axeslinger]

Always with the personal insults?

I am being a realist. Should the GOP adopt the policies you advocate they'd be a minority party for generations.

So you want to deport someone brought here as a two year old, that served in the Army, a combat vet
that is now a college educated STEM worker? Good luck with that.

@jpsb
Two things:

First, if that’s a personal insult, you need to toughen up a little bit cupcake.  Really?!?

Second, ok I’ll play.  We’ll let the illegal who served as a combat medicated but is now a college educated STEM worker stay as soon as their bona fides check out.  But maybe you can then agree to not sanctify the other 75 gazillion of them that don’t fit your narrow definition?

[roamer_1]

So you want to deport someone [...] that served in the Army, a combat vet

This is the only thing I agree with you about in this.

I have long opined that one who serves honorably as a combat soldier has already proved himself a citizen and patriot, having been proven by trial in the worst sort of crucible. Far worse than any test a mere bureaucracy might devise.

Certainly all the more so for a decorated combat soldier...

[Sanguine]

This is the only thing I agree with you about in this.

I have long opined that one who serves honorably as a combat soldier has already proved himself a citizen and patriot, having been proven by trial in the worst sort of crucible. Far worse than any test a mere bureaucracy might devise.

Certainly all the more so for a decorated combat soldier...

Combat vets aren't deported; they earn their citizenship that way.  Now, there is a story floating around about a vet, whether combat or not, who had also committed a crime, and I think it was before his attained his citizenship.  He was deported.  Facts can be pesky things.

[jpsb]

@jpsb
Second, ok I’ll play.  We’ll let the illegal who served as a combat medicated but is now a college educated STEM worker stay as soon as their bona fides check out.  But maybe you can then agree to not sanctify the other 75 gazillion of them that don’t fit your narrow definition?

That's all I am saying, deal with them (DACA folks) in humane way on a case by case bases. Some we
may want to keep others not so much. But deport them all, is just not going fly.

[roamer_1]

Combat vets aren't deported; they earn their citizenship that way. Now, there is a story floating around about a vet, whether combat or not, who had also committed a crime, and I think it was before his attained his citizenship.  He was deported.  Facts can be pesky things.

I would certainly hope that is true (I do not know, one way or the other), but then why is it a part of the conversation?

[Sanguine]

I would certainly hope that is true (I do not know, one way or the other), but then why is it a part of the conversation?

I can't answer that.  Maybe a red herring?

[Emjay]

I already chose the Conservative approach. 

-  Prosecute deportees who re-cross our border.
-  Stop catch-and-release of asylum seekers.
-  Stop giving out free stuff to illegals.


And clearly, you are not on board with any of that.

I'm totally on board with the conservative side.  I'm not on board with pie in the sky expectations which are self-defeating and get in the way of realistic progress.

And none of the things you want can be accomplished if we fail to support Trump and weaken him to the point that the democrats get elected in 2020.

Where would all your ideas be then?

[Axeslinger]

I'm totally on board with the conservative side.  I'm not on board with pie in the sky expectations which are self-defeating and get in the way of realistic progress.

And none of the things you want can be accomplished if we fail to support Trump and weaken him to the point that the democrats get elected in 2020.

Where would all your ideas be then?

@Emjay
As I said to you (yesterday?)

There is much to be gained by pushing for more, and not just bowing in fealty to whatever trump throws out today.