Trump says he ‘never said’ Mexico would pay for the wall. But he did – a lot

[Vern]

You want to deny your own argument, that's your problem. I'm not going to waste my time proving people are denying their own arguments.

Bigotry. Bulverism fallacy.

ITN, I'm going to type this very very slowly. You've posted "the left thought Mexico would send a check". I've clearly stated "the left" simply pointed out that Trump said mexico would send a check. And that proves trump is lying again. You've been asked to back up your claim. You've whined and deflected non stop since. Please back up your claim.

And ITN, its pretty funny you whine "Bigotry. Bulverism fallacy" when all I'm doing is asking you back up your claim.

 

[Moderate Right]

You can apply for asylum BEFORE you step foot inside the US.That's part of what embassies are for.

Exactly! So, the law should be changed to just that.

 

[Moderate Right]

So are you saying Democrats are not in their right mind because they are fixating on this very topic?

I'm saying Democrats are being hypocritical for fixating on this topic when they don't want the wall anyway. And, yes, I am saying that they are crazy if they think by fixating on this topic that they are going to convince someone who really wants a wall to vote Democratic next time just because Mexico didn't pay for it. People who want the wall don't give a damn who pays for it. Do you really think a diehard Trump supporter is going to vote Democratic next time just because if we get a wall they found out we paid for it instead of Mexico? Really?

 

[Vern]

I'm saying Democrats are being hypocritical for fixating on this topic when they don't want the wall anyway. And, yes, I am saying that they are crazy if they think by fixating on this topic that they are going to convince someone who really wants a wall to vote Democratic next time just because Mexico didn't pay for it. People who want the wall don't give a damn who pays for it. Do you really think a diehard Trump supporter is going to vote Democratic next time just because if we get a wall they found out we paid for it instead of Mexico? Really?

MR, its not hypocritical to point out trump is lying again. We knew he was lying when he said mexico would pay for it. We know he's lying when he said he never said it. And no MR, you and yours thought mexico was going to pay the wall. Just like you thought republicans were going to balance the budget. your conservative masters wont stop lying to you until you hold them accountable.

 

[Moderate Right]

Many demorats see immigration (legal or not) as accelerating favorable demographic changes and many republicants see immigration (legal or not) as critical to keeping US labor costs lower (and thus profits higher). Other than that, congress is all for limiting immigration (legal or not).

I don't agree with you on the Republican aspect. In fact, it is Democrats in California who are fighting to keep illegals on the payroll for the good of California's salad bowl economy.

 

[Into the Night]

ITN, I'm going to type this very very slowly. You've posted "the left thought Mexico would send a check". I've clearly stated "the left" simply pointed out that Trump said mexico would send a check.

So you think Mexico was going to a check, just like any liberal.

And that proves trump is lying again.

No, it only proves that you believed Mexico would send a check.

You've been asked to back up your claim. You've whined and deflected non stop since. Please back up your claim.

What claim? Void argument fallacy.

And ITN, its pretty funny you whine "Bigotry. Bulverism fallacy" when all I'm doing is asking you back up your claim.

What claim? Void argument fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Exactly! So, the law should be changed to just that.

Nothing to change.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm saying Democrats are being hypocritical for fixating on this topic when they don't want the wall anyway. And, yes, I am saying that they are crazy if they think by fixating on this topic that they are going to convince someone who really wants a wall to vote Democratic next time just because Mexico didn't pay for it. People who want the wall don't give a damn who pays for it. Do you really think a diehard Trump supporter is going to vote Democratic next time just because if we get a wall they found out we paid for it instead of Mexico? Really?

So the answer is yes. Democrats are not in their right mind because they are fixating on this very topic.

I agree with you.

 

[Into the Night]

MR, its not hypocritical to point out trump is lying again. We knew he was lying when he said mexico would pay for it.

They probably will in the end.

We know he's lying when he said he never said it.

No, he is not.

And no MR, you and yours thought mexico was going to pay the wall.

They probably will in the end.

Just like you thought republicans were going to balance the budget.

No one is going to balance the budget. Off topic.

your conservative masters wont stop lying to you until you hold them accountable.

So you would rather have your Democratic masters lying to you, eh?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't agree with you on the Republican aspect. In fact, it is Democrats in California who are fighting to keep illegals on the payroll for the good of California's salad bowl economy.

That (bolded above) is based on what? States could mandate that E-Verify be used for all employment within their state yet few have done so. Why do you suppose that is the case? Most have a state income tax which would make that fairly easy to do. Other's, like Texas, without a state income tax would have a bit harder time in verifying compliance but simply don't care to do so.

https://cis.org/Huennekens/EVerify-Continues-Grow

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The demand comes from stupid US laws and leftist policies. Once you step foot in the US, legally or illegally, you can apply for asylum and be taken care of by the government. So, I agree. Remove these incentives and they will not come. It is not employers who give the incentives, it is the things I mentioned. These people can still come here illegally and be legal the instant they step foot across the border and if they can't get jobs because employers don't hire them, these people know the US government will take care of them anyway.

There is no American law that PROHIBITS crossing the US border, therefore it is not possible to "ILLEGALLY CROSS" the US border regardless of how you CROSS the US border.

It is, however, possible to "ILLEGALLY REMAIN" in the US once you have crossed the US border.

A person who "illegally remains" in the US can be "removed" from the US (and they have always been liable for "removal").

PS - People are only "legal" after crossing the border IF they have complied with American law with respect to REMAINING in the US. If they are seeking asylum, then they are "legal" as long as their request is under consideration and they only remain "legal" once their request has been considered IF their request has been granted by the US government. If their request is denied, then they are (or, in a civilized country, would be) given the option of leaving the country voluntarily (which would NOT impact any future requests for entry into the US) or being deported (which WOULD impact any future requests for entry into the US).

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You can apply for asylum BEFORE you step foot inside the US.That's part of what embassies are for.

Actually you are wrong on two points:

1. Under American law you can NOT apply for asylum from outside the United States of America (you can apply for "refugee status" but that is NOT the same thing); and
2. once you set foot inside an American embassy you ARE on "American soil" and that means that - LEGALLY - you did "step one foot inside the US".

People who are in the US "illegally" can apply for asylum (generally referred to as "defensive asylum) and COULD have the application granted..

People who have a criminal record can apply for asylum (their criminal record MIGHT mitigate against them) and COULD have the application granted.

People who have had an application for asylum refused previously can apply for asylum (but there is an onus on them to prove why their prior refusal should not result in a refusal on the subsequent application [the standard of proof is roughly equivalent to "well beyond any reasonable doubt"]) and MIGHT have the application granted - but the odds are REALLY low.

People who are NOT in the US or at the US border can apply for asylum, but that application WILL be rejected without further consideration based solely on the fact that the laws of the United States of America do not make that person a person who is eligible to receive asylum.

People who are in the US and have been in the US for longer than one year can apply for asylum, but that application WILL be rejected without further consideration based solely on the fact that the laws of the United States of America do not make that person a person who is eligible to receive asylum.

Might I suggest that you actually take a look at the actual laws of the United States of America before you make claims about what they are?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

We have 700 miles of wall and they are "walking right in" - adding 220 more miles of wall (making that 25% harder?) will not change that situation much, if at all. The bulk of the problem is the lack of interior immigration law enforcement where US residents (legal or not) are treated much the same as US citizens.

Mr. Trump has "clarified" his position regarding "The Wall" by his statement that there is no need for one where "natural barriers" exist.

Spoiler

Those "natural barriers" include the Rio Grande - which, everyone knows, has never once been successfully crossed by any living being.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Exactly! So, the law should be changed to just that.

Be careful what you ask for.

What you ask for would make it quite easy for a country that had a minority that it wanted to get rid of to simply round them up and march them into the US embassy after telling them "If you come out of the embassy WITHOUT having a claim for asylum accepted, we will shoot you.".

The Syrians (to give one example) could get rid of its "Kurdish Problem" indirectly by reaching an agreement with some other country to have the Kurds bused to the US embassy in that country in order to claim asylum after telling the Kurds that they would be shot if they attempted to re-enter Syria.

PS - Your "exactly" is (almost) "exactly wrong", but no one cares on the Internet (as long as you type loudly, forcefully, repeatedly, and using the currently approved catchphrases).

 

[ElChupacabra]

We have 700 miles of wall and they are "walking right in" - adding 220 more miles of wall (making that 25% harder?) will not change that situation much, if at all. The bulk of the problem is the lack of interior immigration law enforcement where US residents (legal or not) are treated much the same as US citizens.

I suppose the retort is "but walls work". I don't think the numbers are going to matter to folks who are intent on dealing with the issue from the perspective of building a barrier. For me there are too many questions to feel confident it is worth the money if the incentive to come here is still present.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I don't agree with you on the Republican aspect. In fact, it is Democrats in California who are fighting to keep illegals on the payroll for the good of California's salad bowl economy.

When I purchase salads, I generally have a choice between "Canada Grown", "US Grown", or "Mexico Grown". They all sell for about the same price and I make my choice based on what appears to be the quality of the salad in the package. Frequently the apparent quality is the same and so it becomea a matter of price. This means that sometimes I buy one, sometimes the other. If all three appear to be the same, I'll buy the cheapest. If two appear to be of good quality and one doesn't then the one that doesn't is out of the running and I'll buy the cheaper of the other two. If only one appears to be of good quality, then it gets my nod (unless the price is out of line - in which case I'll buy something else)..If the US product were to double in price, then the US product would tend to lose out MUCH more frequently.

Of course, if you never eat salads or vegetables then all of that is irrelevant to you.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Mr. Trump has "clarified" his position regarding "The Wall" by his statement that there is no need for one where "natural barriers" exist.

Spoiler

Those "natural barriers" include the Rio Grande - which, everyone knows, has never once been successfully crossed by any living being.

Many, living along the Rio Grande, do not want a border wall.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...amid-push-for-wall-what-to-know-about-mcallen

https://heavy.com/news/2019/01/jim-darling/

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

So you think Mexico was going to a check, just like any liberal.

Did you know that "I've clearly stated "the left" simply pointed out that Trump said Mexico would send a check." does NOT mean the same thing as "I thought that Mexico was going to send a check."?

Or did you simply ignore a plainly expressed difference simply so that you could pretend to have made a point?

No, it only proves that you believed Mexico would send a check.

OK, that resolves it for me. It really doesn't matter which it is because you are not likely to admit that "Donald Trump said" is NOT the same thing as "I said" and the reasons for not doing that are irrelevant.

 

[Bodi]

There is no American law that PROHIBITS crossing the US border, therefore it is not possible to "ILLEGALLY CROSS" the US border regardless of how you CROSS the US border.

Try telling that to a US Border Patrol Agent at Customs next time you cross into the USA. Don't show your passport either... just walk right on past.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I suppose the retort is "but walls work". I don't think the numbers are going to matter to folks who are intent on dealing with the issue from the perspective of building a barrier. For me there are too many questions to feel confident it is worth the money if the incentive to come here is still present.

That (bolded above) is definitely true. So long as "access to" jobs and social services is not limited to those residents legally present them more will enter illegally and/or remain without legal status.

 

[Into the Night]

There is no American law that PROHIBITS crossing the US border, therefore it is not possible to "ILLEGALLY CROSS" the US border regardless of how you CROSS the US border.

Yes there is. See U.S. Immigration law. Every nation has laws to govern passage across their borders. You are being ridiculous.

 

[Into the Night]

I suppose the retort is "but walls work". I don't think the numbers are going to matter to folks who are intent on dealing with the issue from the perspective of building a barrier. For me there are too many questions to feel confident it is worth the money if the incentive to come here is still present.

Worth the money??? $5b is chump change, dude. It's only 0.0125% of the federal budget.

Still waiting for the House to pass an acceptable budget. Where are you, Pelosi?

 

[Into the Night]

Many, living along the Rio Grande, do not want a border wall.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tr...amid-push-for-wall-what-to-know-about-mcallen

https://heavy.com/news/2019/01/jim-darling/

And many do, so there.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Yes there is. See U.S. Immigration law. Every nation has laws to govern passage across their borders. You are being ridiculous.

There is no law preventing arrivals from asking for asylum. As a matter of fact, a different set of laws govern that scenario.

 

[Vern]

So you think Mexico was going to a check, just like any liberal.
No, it only proves that you believed Mexico would send a check.
What claim? Void argument fallacy.
What claim? Void argument fallacy.

ITN, the only question is are you being dishonest on purpose or if you cant help it. I'll type this as slow as possible. Me telling you what trump said doesn't mean I believe trump. Would you call that a logical fallacy or a non sequitur? Doesn't matter, its just another falsehood coming from you. And I'm just going to assume your dishonesty is on purpose. I've seen this desperate "squirming and weaseling" before. You have to avoid acknowledging that "the left" never thought Mexico would pay for the wall.

so ITN, stop being dishonest and address my post in an honest and intelligent fashion. When you can address that, come on back.