President Donald Trump

[GwynnInTheHall]

I advocate for sane discourse. when, per FactCheck.org, we find out that 67 people died under ICE custody in 8 years of Obama and, per NBC, 24 have died so far at ICE under Trump - well, the volume dialing from almost nonexistent, outside of immigration advocates, all the way up to 11 now speaks to something far, far beyond claims of newfound compassion (not speaking about you, but about the media).

when countless elected officials and progressive celebrities constantly tweet out what they call "horrific" pictures of migrant treatment by Trump that turn out to be from a 2014 series by the Arizona Republic (it's STILL happening), I get a little annoyed. when Obama builds "detention centers" that magically get marketed into "cages" once he leaves office, I get a little more annoyed.

there's a serious issue here that needs to be addressed. remember the two years when Obama enjoyed majorities in the House and Senate? Democrats could have produced any immigration policy they wanted.

but because they much prefer this status quo - ginning up the base with outrage - I get even more annoyed.

two masses of sheeple out there is just difficult to watch.

Here's the thing JJ. You and I and everyone in here knows selective outrage exists. At one time or another each of us has fallen prey to the easy trap this Selective Outrage can become--everyone of us.

So with that in mind let's focus on the problem at hand--ALL the problems and whomever is in office, seek to find equitable solutions.

Back to the issue we were discussing, Trump has implemented a far more exacting policy and enacted even more policies with his ICE raids that are exacerbating and already bad situation.

Illegal and Legal immigration have been issues for decades now and Trumps hard handed approach isn't going to accomplish anything but create a greater humanitarian crisis than already existed.

Forget the past and focus on the now.

Is this policy or policies leading up to what we've seen humane? Is it contrary to our ethics as a Nation, society to treat these people in this manner?

How much of this is driven by for profit entities and why is that being allowed?


Let's get to answering these questions Not that anyone outside of this forum really gives a shit about anything we in here have to say.

[Judge Jude]

"Trump has implemented a far more exacting policy and enacted even more policies with his ICE raids that are exacerbating an already bad situation."

yes.

and I'm seeing far more TDS than I am suggestions on how to improve that situation.

there's also an elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about - if we have this many migrants in spite of these conditions, then how many more will we get once conditions improve?

"open borders" people may be naive, but at least they avoid the elephant. for everyone else who is outraged, what do THEY want to see happen?

I'm open to suggestions.

[Teenwolf]

Wow, the level of delusion involved in bringing up motherfucking TDS on a day when YOUR piece of human fucking garbage told minority congresswomen to go back to their countries.

[Judge Jude]

he's not mine, sorry pal. the world is not binary.

if you like, I'll virtue-signal the obvious - how incredibly stupid and offensive those and a million of his other comments are.
but I'm not really into virtue signaling.

meanwhile, note the deflection away from the question about someone offering something constructive about what to do about the US border. it's far more fun for too many people to state the obvious about Trump's vulgarity. can we, to coin a phrase, "move on?"

I'm looking for a sensible plan. and the more outrage one displays, the more I would expect that person to offer what they believe is one. what would be the point of bitching about something for months (in some cases without even knowing the facts) while spending no time searching for what they might see as a solution?

I'll start. here's one from earlier this year from NY House members R Peter King and D Tom Suozzi

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/opinion/a-grand-compromise-on-immigration.html

"Americans are frustrated by the inaction of their federal government on comprehensive immigration reform and border security. So are we.

We both represent districts on Long Island, and we have both worked on immigration-related issues for over 25 years — one of us, Representative Suozzi, from the perspective of immigrant’s rights as a mayor, as a county executive and now as a member of Congress; the other, Representative King, from the perspective of border security as a former county comptroller, and now as a congressman and former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

We come at this from different points of view and different parties, but with a shared commitment to finding a solution to our country’s border-security issues. Together, we have found common ground to address the problems faced by undocumented immigration and the need for robust border security."

"First, our plan would create a path to citizenship for approximately 1.9 million immigrants brought by their parents, without documentation, when they were 18 or under, the so-called Dreamers. To be eligible, they must have graduated from high school; have no record of criminal activity; and be either in the military, working full time for at least three years or attending college.

We would extend similar coverage to the 400,000 people who were invited to America and given temporary protective status after facing natural disasters, violence and extreme poverty in their home countries."

Finally, relatives of Dreamers, of T.P.S. recipients and of others who are undocumented — approximately 2.7 million more people — would be eligible for three years of protective status, renewable indefinitely, if they have been in the United States for a significant number of years and have no record of criminal activity.

Taken together, this represents five million people.

Next, to qualify for protection, an undocumented person would be required to pay a $2,000 fee. If each of the five million paid that amount, our plan would generate $10 billion.

Some of that money, in turn, would be used to cover the administrative costs of this new program; we figure those costs would be $1.4 billion.

The remaining $8.6 billion would be split evenly: $4.3 billion would pay for additional physical structures along the United States-Mexico border, as proposed by the Department of Homeland Security, and $4.3 billion would go to aid to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to help prevent further out-migration from those countries, as well as to radar technology, improved ports of entry, immigration judges, border patrol personnel and humanitarian assistance along the border, as recommended by the Department Homeland Security."

(there's more)

[nots]

"Trump has implemented a far more exacting policy and enacted even more policies with his ICE raids that are exacerbating an already bad situation."

yes.

and I'm seeing far more TDS than I am suggestions on how to improve that situation.

there's also an elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about - if we have this many migrants in spite of these conditions, then how many more will we get once conditions improve?

"open borders" people may be naive, but at least they avoid the elephant. for everyone else who is outraged, what do THEY want to see happen?

I'm open to suggestions.

I can guarantee that offering free health care to immigrants as 10 Democrats did during their debate last week is not going to dissuade even more folks from showing up at the border further increasing the crisis.

[Kevin Seitzer]

We should start by recognizing that immigrants are an asset, maybe even especially poor ones from Latin, African, and Asian cultures.

We should figure out how to integrate as many into our society as we can rather than trying to keep them out and making the bureaucratic and physical hurdles as difficult as possible.

I don't know at what level immigration becomes too much that it destabilizes and harms our society, but we are currently nowhere near that level.

[nots]

he's not mine, sorry pal. the world is not binary.

if you like, I'll virtue-signal the obvious - how incredibly stupid and offensive those and a million of his other comments are.
but I'm not really into virtue signaling.

meanwhile, note the deflection away from the question about someone offering something constructive about what to do about the US border. it's far more fun for too many people to state the obvious about Trump's vulgarity. can we, to coin a phrase, "move on?"

I'm looking for a sensible plan. and the more outrage one displays, the more I would expect that person to offer what they believe is one. what would be the point of bitching about something for months (in some cases without even knowing the facts) while spending no time searching for what they might see as a solution?

I'll start. here's one from earlier this year from NY House members R Peter King and D Tom Suozzi

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/24/opinion/a-grand-compromise-on-immigration.html

"Americans are frustrated by the inaction of their federal government on comprehensive immigration reform and border security. So are we.

We both represent districts on Long Island, and we have both worked on immigration-related issues for over 25 years — one of us, Representative Suozzi, from the perspective of immigrant’s rights as a mayor, as a county executive and now as a member of Congress; the other, Representative King, from the perspective of border security as a former county comptroller, and now as a congressman and former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

We come at this from different points of view and different parties, but with a shared commitment to finding a solution to our country’s border-security issues. Together, we have found common ground to address the problems faced by undocumented immigration and the need for robust border security."

"First, our plan would create a path to citizenship for approximately 1.9 million immigrants brought by their parents, without documentation, when they were 18 or under, the so-called Dreamers. To be eligible, they must have graduated from high school; have no record of criminal activity; and be either in the military, working full time for at least three years or attending college.

We would extend similar coverage to the 400,000 people who were invited to America and given temporary protective status after facing natural disasters, violence and extreme poverty in their home countries."

Finally, relatives of Dreamers, of T.P.S. recipients and of others who are undocumented — approximately 2.7 million more people — would be eligible for three years of protective status, renewable indefinitely, if they have been in the United States for a significant number of years and have no record of criminal activity.

Taken together, this represents five million people.

Next, to qualify for protection, an undocumented person would be required to pay a $2,000 fee. If each of the five million paid that amount, our plan would generate $10 billion.

Some of that money, in turn, would be used to cover the administrative costs of this new program; we figure those costs would be $1.4 billion.

The remaining $8.6 billion would be split evenly: $4.3 billion would pay for additional physical structures along the United States-Mexico border, as proposed by the Department of Homeland Security, and $4.3 billion would go to aid to El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras to help prevent further out-migration from those countries, as well as to radar technology, improved ports of entry, immigration judges, border patrol personnel and humanitarian assistance along the border, as recommended by the Department Homeland Security."

(there's more)

Seems reasonable.

[DMT]

Gotta love blatant racism being tweeted out by Trump, can't wait to hear how Obama laid the foundation for them.

[Judge Jude]

the disinterest in constructive discussion on the immigrant crisis intrigues me.

as they say in the news business, "if it bleeds, it leads."

much more fun to virtue signal

[Fresno Bob]

We should start by recognizing that immigrants are an asset, maybe even especially poor ones from Latin, African, and Asian cultures.

We should figure out how to integrate as many into our society as we can rather than trying to keep them out and making the bureaucratic and physical hurdles as difficult as possible.

I don't know at what level immigration becomes too much that it destabilizes and harms our society, but we are currently nowhere near that level.

this! walking 1500 kilometers when 7 months pregnant so that you can have your baby in the US is not the mark of someone lazy, it's the mark of someone entrepenural, and should be welcomed in the US, not shunned. We let people buy their way into the US every freaking day through the EB-5 program (invest $1M and create 10 jobs, or invest 500k into an existing business) without hue and cry from the anti-immigrant cohort. That's why you see so many nail salons.

[Teenwolf]

the disinterest in constructive discussion on the immigrant crisis intrigues me.

as they say in the news business, "if it bleeds, it leads."

much more fun to virtue signal

You lose all credibility when you pull out the TDS shtick. Keep whining about "constructive discussion" though.

[revo]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

[GwynnInTheHall]

the disinterest in constructive discussion on the immigrant crisis intrigues me.

as they say in the news business, "if it bleeds, it leads."

much more fun to virtue signal

If you're referring to the P"plan"you laid out, what's there to discuss? Trump already killed the dreamers program and so now it's novel to talk about it as though it's something new? and asking some of the poorest people to pay $2000? Do you have any idea how much that is to some of these folks--Like half a years wages if not an entire years wages ands finally, the little "fund a physical barrier" nugget. There is no need for MORE wall, the existing wall and natural barriers are enough. You might not think so, but more than half of the nation does.

So no, were not disinterested in a solution, just disinterested in proposals that do nothing but fix a problem Trump created while getting him money for the wall (which is why he canceled Dreamers in the first place--to extort money for his Wall)

[GwynnInTheHall]

Another thing,

Conservatives (or anyone for that manner) have this thing they do when confronted with an inconvenient truth, they label it and make the truth they don;t want to deal with something bad.

Snowflakes, TDS, SJW and now Virtue Signaling.

In each case, the issue at hand was brought to the public's attention, those who wanted to ignore it or make it go away attached their "stigma"to it. IE

Snowflake began when people who didn't want to think or be considerate before speaking wanted to shut up those they were offending. So if someone who is Trans is offended by an ignoramus using īt"or He/She"when referring to them (or shit like that) Instead of being a considerate and decent human being who's thoughtful of others, they ;use Snowflake in hopes to make the offended party the issue rather than themselves.

TDS? It should be called Trump DEFINITION Syndrome. he's a colossal piece of shit and everyone with a brain, any integrity and a daughter/mother/wife should be out to remove him from office. Call him out at every turn rather than being accepting of his bullshit and behavior. TDS? It's people who are too apathetic, don't care enough or secretly like Trump's method of deflecting valid criticism about the Douchebag.

SJW? What wrong with fighting injustice? We ALL should be SJWs. Do a fraction of people take it to far? sure, but that tiny number of kooks shouldn't be allowed to co opt an entire movement of good hearted citizens only trying to make life better for those who've be marginalized by society.

And now for my new favorite--VIRTUE SIGNALING.

So now saying--I try to do the right thing and you should too is bad? WTF? This is horseshit. If the fact others have i higher ethical standard than you bothers you, then look inward, not label and deflect. Look I get it, some people are at the place in their life where giving a shit about anyone else but themselves and their own is more effort than they want to put forth. Other people's problems are just that--OTHER people's problems. So own the fact you don't care as much as someone else rather than labeling them a "Virtue Signaler" like having a higher ethical standard is a bad thing.

Being offended when someone uses a racial, homophobic, misogynistic slur is not being a Snowflake--it's being a thoughtful and feeling person.

Criticizing one of the worst people to walk the earth (let alone sit in its highest office) isn't derangement. It's being a decent human being exercising their duty as an American Citizen and member of society.

The people being labeled shouldn't be disparaged, those using these terms to deflect from their own apathy and "don't give a shit" attitudes should man up and own their shit--If you don't care or don;t care enough or as much as others--own it, just stop blaming those pointing it out by branding their conscientiousness and compassion as something negative just to avoid your feeling bad when they point it out.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

Last I checked elected officials in the US own nothing to the people of Israel or did I miss something?