This Gives Trump The Power To Declare A National Emergency

[Visbek]

The basic fact about the southern border is that tens of thousands of immigrants cross it illegally every year.

The basic facts about the southern border are:

• More undocumented immigrants are overstaying visas than crossing the southern border.

By the way, the largest group of those visa overstays? They're Canadians. HOLY **** NOW WE NEED A WALL ON THE NORTHERN BORDER!!! Oh, wait, they're entering legally and overstaying. Go ahead, find the wall which stops that.

• Southern border apprehensions have plummeted since 2000, to 1970s levels -- and that's with thousands of asylum seekers crossing and surrendering (a relatively new phenomenon). Fewer crossings = not suddenly an "emergency"

• Many of the crossers, again, are applying for asylum. Whether you like it or not, once they start that process they are in the US legally.

 

[Moderate Right]

Because they're already paid for... :shrug:

Why are you guys so in love with walls? Why not look into ways to make the Mexican desire to work in America work for you? Invest that money into work programs that allow you keep tabs on who is in your country without being a citizen, and get some tax money from them? Make it easy, so only the only people that will attempt to come over illegally will be the type of person you want to keep out, vs. people who just want to work?

Seems like you can get a better ROI in anything OTHER than building a big dumb wall.

Why is that Democrats would pay money to fund an Obama wall but they refuse to pay money to fund a Trump wall? Why is it Democrats have all kinds of policies that make illegals want to come here and milk our country out of money? You don't want to spend money on a wall but you're fine with paying all the expenses associated with illegals.

 

[Moderate Right]

Got a crystal ball, do ya?

Tens of thousands cross the border illegally every year.

 

[OlNate]

Why is that Democrats would pay money to fund an Obama wall but they refuse to pay money to fund a Trump wall? Why is it Democrats have all kinds of policies that make illegals want to come here and milk our country out of money? You don't want to spend money on a wall but you're fine with paying all the expenses associated with illegals.

Well, to be fair, I'm not paying anything, being up here in Canada. I've got no skin in the game. I'm just chatting with ya, bud. So I can't answer for Democrats.

But maybe you can answer for your team...why are you so in love with this wall? Why are you uninterested in looking at other options that promise a better ROI? From here it looks like partisanship...but I'm sure I'm missing something. Can you explain it to me?

 

[NebraskaFtball]

I am not sure how one breaks or pulls back from a system that was put into place in the early 20th Century. Disposing of it would be detrimental to not only our food supply, but the food supply of the world.

The US is able to grow food abundantly and cheaply. We got geographically lucky in that sense. One thing that would have helped is the markets that were going to be opened up by the TPP... as flawed a deal as that was... it placed US Ag businesses in prime position to capitalize on Pacific Rim Trade outside of China. But can't unscramble that egg.

I am going to have to think on this a little. I don't want to go beyond just the spitballing phase of policy discussion on maybe a way to deal with a Ag sector that is not reliant on cheap labor and large subsidies.

I think that maybe a mixture of free market and subsidized money ( within the limits of the WTO of course) might be a path to the answer.

Interesting initial thoughts here.

Yes, the reliance being in place for such a long time has certainly caused our current predicament, as we have had generations now accustomed to the cheap food supply, and the suppliers accustomed to the government cheese helping them out, as it were.

Perhaps if we had entered into bilateral trade negotiations with these emerging markets immediately upon the pull-out of TPP, we would have already filled the void that is now being filled by others, and in particular China. While we cannot look back now, we need to press this issue to become a more pressing one. Unfortunately that seems unrealistic given the current administration and their seeming inability to walk and chew gum simultaneously.

I am thinking a draw down of subsidies over a 20-30 year time-frame is a possibility. But we know how powerful a voting bloc these rural constituencies are for Republicans. They would never go for it. For all of their talk of a free market, and demands of the free market solving our ills, they hypocritically give a pass when it comes to big-agriculture. And it is not just Republicans, even though they are the majority. There are plenty of Democrats that are also at fault here, and gladly accept all of the lobbying dollars from Ag.

 

[OlNate]

The basic facts about the southern border are:

• More undocumented immigrants are overstaying visas than crossing the southern border.


By the way, the largest group of those visa overstays? They're Canadians. HOLY **** NOW WE NEED A WALL ON THE NORTHERN BORDER!!! Oh, wait, they're entering legally and overstaying. Go ahead, find the wall which stops that.

• Southern border apprehensions have plummeted since 2000, to 1970s levels -- and that's with thousands of asylum seekers crossing and surrendering (a relatively new phenomenon). Fewer crossings = not suddenly an "emergency"


• Many of the crossers, again, are applying for asylum. Whether you like it or not, once they start that process they are in the US legally.

Please, please, PUH-LEEEZ build a wall across your northern border. :lol:

 

[Jezcoe]

Interesting initial thoughts here.

Yes, the reliance being in place for such a long time has certainly caused our current predicament, as we have had generations now accustomed to the cheap food supply, and the suppliers accustomed to the government cheese helping them out, as it were.

Perhaps if we had entered into bilateral trade negotiations with these emerging markets immediately upon the pull-out of TPP, we would have already filled the void that is now being filled by others, and in particular China. While we cannot look back now, we need to press this issue to become a more pressing one. Unfortunately that seems unrealistic given the current administration and their seeming inability to walk and chew gum simultaneously.

I am thinking a draw down of subsidies over a 20-30 year time-frame is a possibility. But we know how powerful a voting bloc these rural constituencies are for Republicans. They would never go for it. For all of their talk of a free market, and demands of the free market solving our ills, they hypocritically give a pass when it comes to big-agriculture. And it is not just Republicans, even though they are the majority. There are plenty of Democrats that are also at fault here, and gladly accept all of the lobbying dollars from Ag.

I think that bilateral trade agreements between Large States and Small ones are a thing of the past. There is strength in Numbers. A small economy setting up a deal with a massive one is going to get rolled hard. That is why the model of having mulitlateral agreements between smaller regional states anchored by a really large economic power ( that basically has the most say in the deal) is the most beneficial for all parties involved. Of course it is impossible to get all of these deals to be perfect an they tend towards benefiting corporate power and profits over labor ( and you know me, I am a labor guy) but given the alternative, I think that they offer the least worst choice when it comes to international trade protections.

I doubt that the large subsidies would ever go down, you are right too much political power, but one of the major problems I see in the future is the Intellectual Property value of food.

I would love to see large government funding of the next generation of genetic modified foods that would be open source and available to all. That wouldn't be the most Capitalistic thing to do, but it would be the most beneficial. I think that that would help to keep production costs down overall.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

A gift from heaven:



https://www.yahoo.com/news/migrant-caravan-heads-u-border-090511743.html

Why wasn't the last caravan a national emergency? I guess Trump had too many rallies to go to to be bothered with declaring one?

I'm actually starting to want him to declare a national emergency if that's what it takes to reopen the government.

 

[Visbek]

They are invaders - plain and simple.

Uh... No. They aren't. They are not seizing our land and raiding the local Walmarts. They're just migrants.

By "seeking" (ha ha ha) asylum, they can circumvent all the rules and laws that apply to a regular immigrant, including handing over $$$ to the US government for the privilege of entering the country.

Nope, wrong, totally wrong.

When they apply for asylum, they are subject to a different set of rules and requirements. They can only stay in the US if they meet specific conditions. They get to stay longer at first -- legally -- because we refuse to add judges to immigration courts, leading to a massive backlog of nearly 800,000 cases.

Asylum applicants cannot simply pay to stay in the US. Ironically, Jared Kushner's old company (run by his sister and other relatives) were the ones pushing a cash-for-residency plan; they courted Chinese investors with a real estate development, pointing out that by investing $500,000 in the project they qualified for an EB-5 visa, i.e. they get expedited access to a permanent green card/US residency. (The EB-5 is as close as it gets to buying residency, and none of that money goes to the government.)

And more irony: The Trump Shutdown is making the backlog worse, because tens of thousands of cases have to be canceled and rescheduled. That might push back some of those cases by up to 4 years.

 

[NebraskaFtball]

I think that bilateral trade agreements between Large States and Small ones are a thing of the past. There is strength in Numbers. A small economy setting up a deal with a massive one is going to get rolled hard. That is why the model of having mulitlateral agreements between smaller regional states anchored by a really large economic power ( that basically has the most say in the deal) is the most beneficial for all parties involved. Of course it is impossible to get all of these deals to be perfect an they tend towards benefiting corporate power and profits over labor ( and you know me, I am a labor guy) but given the alternative, I think that they offer the least worst choice when it comes to international trade protections.

I don't disagree with you here. But also in the age we live in, large multilateral agreements are always going to have areas within them that can be picked apart by a partisan opposition, and made to seem horrible on the whole as a result. Hence what we saw with TPP. I don't know how this reality can be solved without strong bipartisan agreement, which unfortunately I do not see occurring anytime in the foreseeable future.

I doubt that the large subsidies would ever go down, you are right too much political power, but one of the major problems I see in the future is the Intellectual Property value of food.

I would love to see large government funding of the next generation of genetic modified foods that would be open source and available to all. That wouldn't be the most Capitalistic thing to do, but it would be the most beneficial. I think that that would help to keep production costs down overall.

That is interesting and something I have yet to consider. As with most intellectual property, I'm a strong advocate for security and allowing the market to dictate which ideas win out. But I also acknowledge I would need to give some to get some in this regard. And let's face it, I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Monsanto.

 

[Barnacle]

Uh... No. They aren't. They are not seizing our land and raiding the local Walmarts. They're just migrants.
...

They're seizing our taxes ... or what do you think pays for their upkeep and medical treatment until when and if at all they are able to support themselves?!?

 

[Visbek]

They're seizing our taxes ... or what do you think pays for their upkeep and medical treatment until when and if at all they are able to support themselves?!?

sigh

They aren't "seizing our taxes." In fact, lots of undocumented immigrants pay into Social Security, and will never collect. Obviously they also pay sales taxes, gas taxes, pay for their landlord's property taxes, and so on. About half pay federal taxes, and 50-75% pay state taxes (as these taxes are collected in their paychecks). Overall, undocumented immigrants wind up paying more in taxes than they collect in services.

In case you missed it somehow, undocumented immigrants don't get free medical care, aren't eligible for subsidized housing, aren't eligible for food stamps or welfare benefits, and so on.

If an undocumented immigrant is in the US and has a child, the child is a US citizen. The parents are still not eligible for benefits, though.

 

[Barnacle]

sigh

They aren't "seizing our taxes." In fact, lots of undocumented immigrants pay into Social Security, and will never collect. Obviously they also pay sales taxes, gas taxes, pay for their landlord's property taxes, and so on. About half pay federal taxes, and 50-75% pay state taxes (as these taxes are collected in their paychecks). Overall, undocumented immigrants wind up paying more in taxes than they collect in services.
In case you missed it somehow, undocumented immigrants don't get free medical care, aren't eligible for subsidized housing, aren't eligible for food stamps or welfare benefits, and so on.
If an undocumented immigrant is in the US and has a child, the child is a US citizen. The parents are still not eligible for benefits, though.

The asylum seekers are paying into our SS?!? That's new to me ... they have no work permit while their asylum status is being determined by our courts.

In the meantime, they are released into the general population ...

 

[Moderate Right]

The basic facts about the southern border are:

• More undocumented immigrants are overstaying visas than crossing the southern border.

By the way, the largest group of those visa overstays? They're Canadians. HOLY **** NOW WE NEED A WALL ON THE NORTHERN BORDER!!! Oh, wait, they're entering legally and overstaying. Go ahead, find the wall which stops that.

• Southern border apprehensions have plummeted since 2000, to 1970s levels -- and that's with thousands of asylum seekers crossing and surrendering (a relatively new phenomenon). Fewer crossings = not suddenly an "emergency"

• Many of the crossers, again, are applying for asylum. Whether you like it or not, once they start that process they are in the US legally.

So, even you admit that over 100,000 illegals cross over the border illegally every year. Time for a wall, don't you think? And, I totally agree that we need to stop people from overstaying their visas. Maybe we should profile these people and not give risks visas in the first place.

 

[Moderate Right]

Well, to be fair, I'm not paying anything, being up here in Canada. I've got no skin in the game. I'm just chatting with ya, bud. So I can't answer for Democrats.

But maybe you can answer for your team...why are you so in love with this wall? Why are you uninterested in looking at other options that promise a better ROI? From here it looks like partisanship...but I'm sure I'm missing something. Can you explain it to me?

I'm interested in all options, including a wall. It is Democrats who have totally convinced my that a wall will be extremely beneficial. That's why they are so against it. They aren't against it because of the money. They have no problem at all spending 5 billion dollars.

 

[Lursa]

They are invaders - plain and simple.

.

So then we can arrest anyone that hires them or gives them shelter for treason? At the least as accomplices?

Plain and simple? Cant we punish all those that give 'aid and comfort' to the invaders?

Shouldnt we do that?

 

[Visbek]

The asylum seekers are paying into our SS?!? That's new to me ...

Apparently.

Yes, asylum seekers can apply for work permits. After they apply, if a decision in their case has not been reached after 150 days, they can apply for a work permit. They can start working after 180 days.

In the meantime, they are released into the general population ...

Yes, just like -- gasp! -- actual human beings. What a concept.

And again, they don't qualify for safety nets etc unless they are actually awarded asylum.

 

[Tigerace117]

The fact that it has been happening for decades means it has to stop now! You guys say that gun violence has been happening for decades but you want gun control legislation to stop it. Why not just roll over and admit defeat and say that since it has been happening for decades then we should just ignore it?

So in other words you are saying you'd be fine with a democratic president declaring a national emergency to aid in confisticating guns.

 

[Visbek]

So, even you admit that over 100,000 illegals cross over the border illegally every year. Time for a wall, don't you think?

Nope.

1) Yet again! A wall won't stop undocumented immigrants. The very idea is, well, rather idiotic.

2) Undocumented immigrants, despite all the xenophobic hysteria, do not actually pose any actual threat or harm to the US.

3) Yet again! The number of immigrants crossing the southern border is dropping. Meaning that even if you make the mistake of saying "it's a problem," then it is becoming less of a problem. That's the opposite of a crisis. That's just basic logic.

And, I totally agree that we need to stop people from overstaying their visas. Maybe we should profile these people and not give risks visas in the first place.

LOL

The US issues around 9 million tourist visas per year. You wanna "profile" all of them? Good luck with that. And then have fun traveling outside the US, when every other nation retaliates by profiling Americans traveling abroad.

 

[Barnacle]

Apparently.
Yes, asylum seekers can apply for work permits. After they apply, if a decision in their case has not been reached after 150 days, they can apply for a work permit. They can start working after 180 days.
Yes, just like -- gasp! -- actual human beings. What a concept.
And again, they don't qualify for safety nets etc unless they are actually awarded asylum.

Correct; they need a work permit which is not easily granted when your case is reviewed by courts.

As to being entitled to our safety nets - when they're awarded asylum - is exactly the problem I have with these invaders.
As a former immigrant, I needed an American sponsor who had to sign a guarantee that he/she would be responsible for me in case I could not support myself so as not to become a burden to American taxpayer for at least 5 years.

As I said before, all the invaders apply for asylum in order to circumvent the existing immigration laws we have. (spit)

 

[Visbek]

Correct; they need a work permit which is not easily granted when your case is reviewed by courts.

Try again.

The permit is valid until the court makes its decision on whether the individual is granted asylum. If they are granted asylum, they have residency, and can work without a permit. If they are denied asylum, they are deported. Until that final decision is made, if they have a permit, then they can work.

As to being entitled to our safety nets - when they're awarded asylum - is exactly the problem I have with these invaders.
As a former immigrant, I needed an American sponsor who had to sign a guarantee that he/she would be responsible for me in case I could not support myself so as not to become a burden to American taxpayer for at least 5 years.

As I said before, all the invaders apply for asylum in order to circumvent the existing immigration laws we have. (spit)

So they are "invaders" because... uh... you had to wait longer for food stamps? Seriously?

Back in the real world: The US accepts around 40,000 asylum requests per year -- and 65% of asylum requests are denied. As a reminder, the US grants around 1,000,000 green card requests per year.

You can't just saunter into court and say "poor me, give me asylum." You have to meet strict standards to qualify, and convince an overtaxed court system that you meet those standards. Lots of applicants don't have lots of resources for legal representation. Some are even children who are in courts without a legal guardian, let alone lawyer.

The idea that asylum is a foolproof end-run around the standard immigration process is slightly ridiculous.

Oh, and US safety nets? Yeah, they suck. Housing assistance is limited (and housing in the US is expensive); food assistance is a supplement that barely pays for rice and beans; TANF offers so little, and is so short-term, and requires so many hoops, that most people who are eligible pass; and pretty much every nation in the world except the US actually covers medical care. If they were migrating for benefits, they'd skip the US completely and head for Canada.

 

[Barnacle]

... So they are "invaders" because... uh... you had to wait longer for food stamps? Seriously? ...

Good grief! :lol:... and there I thought my English was bad ... :lamo

Where did you read that I applied for, waited for or ever accepted food stamps ... ?!?


As to the strict standards to qualify for asylum in the US, one of them is spousal abuse in a foreign country.
Show up at an entry point with a shiner and claim your "husband" back in Timbuktu did that - and under our strict standards you stand a very good chance of being whisked in into the US of A.


Here is a reader for you of the abuse of our welfare programs by the invaders:

63% of Non-Citizen Households Access Welfare Programs - Compared to 35% of native households

https://cis.org/Report/63-NonCitizen-Households-Access-Welfare-Programs

 

[Moderate Right]

So in other words you are saying you'd be fine with a democratic president declaring a national emergency to aid in confisticating guns.

So, you are admitting that that is what the left really wants, to confiscate everyone's guns.

 

[Moderate Right]

Nope.

1) Yet again! A wall won't stop undocumented immigrants. The very idea is, well, rather idiotic.

Then why do we have a wall or barriers now across much of the southern border?

 

[americanwoman]

So, you are admitting that that is what the left really wants, to confiscate everyone's guns.

:lol: Really?

I can't speak for Tiger but it was pretty obvious he was noting that since you are okay with Presidents having the power to declare a national emergency when there is no emergency, you should still be okay with it when it's something you are against.