Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Congrats! That's a very old ding. I don't think it's quite as old as some of the groping ones that the mainstream media was regurgitating but still quite old. If true, it also shows that he knows how the game works. That could be a good thing.
I mean, I don't know if this is true or not but I'm sure he was no saint while building up his empire, I'll give you that much. But put moral outrage aside because he's now the President, not a guy building a luxury high rise in NYC.
I think the focus should be on what he will do for the betterment of the country. And this isn't some piddling little campaign promise like "I'll bring jobs to the middle class!" This was the cornerstone of his campaign. I think he has to make good on it, or else there will be consequences from his base. I believe he will be more concerned about that than pissing off business owners, which, given his focus on Ford and Carrier during the campaign, he does not seem to care much about.
Of course it is old, but it shows what he does when he wants money for himself. Yeah, he knows how the game is played, but he has no ethics so he doesn't care if he is breaking the law. (Not a good trait in a President, imo).
During President George W. Bush's second term, Congress authorized $1.2 billion to build several hundred miles of double-layer fencing but the government faced myriad obstacles. Private landowners objecting to buyout offers. There were environmental concerns and lawsuits.
Some 650 miles of border fencing now sits on the border, including roughly 15-foot tall steel fencing in many urban areas that is designed to stop or slow border crossers on foot and vehicle barriers, which are shorter steel posts filled with cement and planted in the ground.
Just getting that built was a challenge and a new, taller wall like the one Trump wants would almost certainly face as much, if not more, opposition.
There is a 1970 treaty that says structures cannot disrupt the flow of the rivers on the border. He would have to build it so as not to induce flooding. It would be extremely costly and he has no plan that congress will approve to pay for it. If you think he can make Mexico pay, you are uninformed.
2. He probably cannot deport 11 million undocumented workers.
John Sandweg, who led ICE for seven months under Mr. Obama, said wholesale deportations could make it easier for immigrant gang members and drug traffickers to escape detection. “If the agents are looking for volume, they won’t spend the time to do the detective work tracking down the high-value bad guy who has fake documents, the hardened criminals in the shadows,” he said.
To prevent flight after arrest, the authorities would have to detain most immigrants awaiting deportation. Existing facilities, with about 34,000 beds, would have to be expanded to hold at least 300,000, Mr. Sandweg estimated, perhaps with tens of thousands of people in detention camps, similar to the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.
Quote:
By any tally, the costs would be enormous. The American Action Forum, a conservative-leaning research group, calculated the federal outlay to be at least $400 billion, and then only if the deportations were stretched over 20 years.
But the proposals’ main flaw, former officials said, is that they are unrealistic. “Unless you suspend the Constitution and instruct the police to behave as if we live in North Korea,” Mr. Chertoff said, “it ain’t happening.”
3. He can make the children who Obama protected go underground to hide again.
4. He can unilaterally stop the country from taking in refugees.
5. He can ban people though he cannot do this on the basis of religion.
There is a 1970 treaty that says structures cannot disrupt the flow of the rivers on the border. He would have to build it so as not to induce flooding. It would be extremely costly and he has no plan that congress will approve to pay for it. If you think he can make Mexico pay, you are uninformed.
.
Your argument, and the Tribune's argument in your link, are based on the faulty premise that treaties are set in stone. Under the Constitution, international treaties basically carry the same weight as statutes, so Congress can modify or repeal them. And while there's no direct law saying a President can unilaterally terminate a treaty, there's nothing saying he can't either. The Supreme Court has twice declined to intervene in unilateral termination of treaties by Presidents - Carter's termination of a defense treaty with Taiwan and Bush II's termination of the ABM treaty.
So neither NAFTA nor the 1970 treaty (even if this would come into play - why would the wall automatically have to disrupt the river?) would stop the wall in the face of a Congress or President who really wanted to build it. The remaining obstacles cited by the Tribune deal more with land acquisition and public opposition, which are common problems which face any government eminent domain project.
He can also make Mexico pay. I know all the liberals gleefully cited to the tough talk of the Mexican President - his F-yous and what not. But, really, all the U.S. government would have to do is impose a special "Wall Tariff" on goods coming in from Mexico and money being wired back there from the U.S. If Mexican corporations want access to the U.S. consumer market, they will pay the tariff and thus pay for the wall. And if people want to send money to relatives or friends in Mexico, they will pay the fee and thus pay for the wall. The Tribune cites to NAFTA as preventing this but, again, NAFTA can be (and probably will be) repealed or heavily modified.
Once again, I personally don't think the wall is the best way to accomplish the goal. It would be easier, and less controversial and expensive, to simply put the burden on the employers who are driving the demand side of the supply. But he can do it if he wants to, certainly with the consent of Congress and maybe even without it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053
2. He probably cannot deport 11 million undocumented workers.
The NYT article raises at least one good point - that trying to deport 11 million people all at once would cause havoc, and would certainly create some pretty disturbing images of police going door to door and what not. That's absolutely true.
Whether you like Trump or hate his guts, you have to acknowledge that he did not get to this point by being stupid. He's already stated that he would start by removing criminals - which the media trumpeted as him "backing down" but which was, in reality, smart. He has to start somewhere and this isn't something that can be done overnight or in one step. Once he starts with that, he can then focus on things like employer sanctions, visa enforcement, streamlined deportation proceedings (with a re-entry option upon compliance with the law for those who qualify), and other measures that would lead to a gradual reduction in the size of the illegal immigrant population over time. My guess is that this is what we'll see.
Your argument, and the Tribune's argument in your link, are based on the faulty premise that treaties are set in stone. Under the Constitution, international treaties basically carry the same weight as statutes, so Congress can modify or repeal them. And while there's no direct law saying a President can unilaterally terminate a treaty, there's nothing saying he can't either. The Supreme Court has twice declined to intervene in unilateral termination of treaties by Presidents - Carter's termination of a defense treaty with Taiwan and Bush II's termination of the ABM treaty.
So neither NAFTA nor the 1970 treaty (even if this would come into play - why would the wall automatically have to disrupt the river?) would stop the wall in the face of a Congress or President who really wanted to build it. The remaining obstacles cited by the Tribune deal more with land acquisition and public opposition, which are common problems which face any government eminent domain project.
He can also make Mexico pay. I know all the liberals gleefully cited to the tough talk of the Mexican President - his F-yous and what not. But, really, all the U.S. government would have to do is impose a special "Wall Tariff" on goods coming in from Mexico and money being wired back there from the U.S. If Mexican corporations want access to the U.S. consumer market, they will pay the tariff and thus pay for the wall. And if people want to send money to relatives or friends in Mexico, they will pay the fee and thus pay for the wall. The Tribune cites to NAFTA as preventing this but, again, NAFTA can be (and probably will be) repealed or heavily modified.
Once again, I personally don't think the wall is the best way to accomplish the goal. It would be easier, and less controversial and expensive, to simply put the burden on the employers who are driving the demand side of the supply. But he can do it if he wants to, certainly with the consent of Congress and maybe even without it.
The NYT article raises at least one good point - that trying to deport 11 million people all at once would cause havoc, and would certainly create some pretty disturbing images of police going door to door and what not. That's absolutely true.
Whether you like Trump or hate his guts, you have to acknowledge that he did not get to this point by being stupid. He's already stated that he would start by removing criminals - which the media trumpeted as him "backing down" but which was, in reality, smart. He has to start somewhere and this isn't something that can be done overnight or in one step. Once he starts with that, he can then focus on things like employer sanctions, visa enforcement, streamlined deportation proceedings (with a re-entry option upon compliance with the law for those who qualify), and other measures that would lead to a gradual reduction in the size of the illegal immigrant population over time. My guess is that this is what we'll see.
What makes you think we don't already deport foreign criminals when we can?
What makes you think we don't already deport foreign criminals when we can?
The actions of our past administrations (and I'm not just blaming Obama - this started with conservative hero Reagan and carried on all the way through today) have shown a woeful lack of priority on the illegal immigration issue. I draw the conclusion that deportation has not been a huge priority of our government.
Sure, they probably deport foreign criminals, but I wonder how much of a concerted effort it is.
How many Americans/legal immigrants are actually lining up to work as a dishwasher for $7 an hour? It's not like these people are working $20+ an hour jobs. We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel if someone is jealous of an illegal immigrants lifestyle.
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." - Lyndon B. Johnson
How many Americans/legal immigrants are actually lining up to work as a dishwasher for $7 an hour? It's not like these people are working $20+ an hour jobs. We're really scraping the bottom of the barrel if someone is jealous of an illegal immigrants lifestyle.
Please go tell that to folks who used to make good money building houses in the construction industry w/out using any illegals.
Also, with minimum wage going up to $13/hr in Cook County bet you there will be more under the table illegal employment. Too bad you can't tax those wages. It isn't like Chicago/IL needs to fill the coffers or anything.
IMO if all the illegals in Chicago were to vanish tomorrow, the city wouldn't be able to function. It is just too dependent on immigrants and illegals in terms of buoying up population growth. Many folks do not want live in those small old houses or go to the mostly crappy CPS schools. So Chicago needs those illegals to keep those neighborhoods alive and the illegals are mostly renters so I'm sure the property owners will fight tooth & nail not to lose a single person in the city.
Unfortunately, when you combine a welfare state with an open border and birthright citizenship you are going to have an illegal issue with economic repercussions. I am all for legal immigration which benefits both the USA and the immigrant but we have to do something to change the current environment or there will be long-term consequences.
If Obama was deporting away, as claimed, then I assume that people on the left will have no issue with Trump merely continuing what Obama was already doing?
I assume most wouldn't care, they're just off put by trump's rhetoric.
Please go tell that to folks who used to make good money building houses in the construction industry w/out using any illegals.
Also, with minimum wage going up to $13/hr in Cook County bet you there will be more under the table illegal employment. Too bad you can't tax those wages. It isn't like Chicago/IL needs to fill the coffers or anything.
IMO if all the illegals in Chicago were to vanish tomorrow, the city wouldn't be able to function. It is just too dependent on immigrants and illegals in terms of buoying up population growth. Many folks do not want live in those small old houses or go to the mostly crappy CPS schools. So Chicago needs those illegals to keep those neighborhoods alive and the illegals are mostly renters so I'm sure the property owners will fight tooth & nail not to lose a single person in the city.
Unfortunately, when you combine a welfare state with an open border and birthright citizenship you are going to have an illegal issue with economic repercussions. I am all for legal immigration which benefits both the USA and the immigrant but we have to do something to change the current environment or there will be long-term consequences.
If people want the jobs that illegal immigrants are working, they're going to have to lead the lifestyle illegal immigrants are living. That means smaller apartments and less desirable schools. The average restaurant isn't going to hire dishwashers and pay them $15 an hour. Waiters don't even get that. Construction may be a different story, but that's difficult to say. I'm 100% against an open border policy, but a lot of anger is being misdirected IMO.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
