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.
First bold: I had already responded with a post that again used the term "progressive" although it added a qualifier to add context (reference to emphasis on the humanitarian). Further explanation of another statements led to a paragraph. Now we're discussing various facts and interpretations connected to that paragraph.
That is to the positive with no personal complaint. Still, that's not how most folks roll if only due to a lack of time. Politicians count on that ...
Second bold: No, nor their thinking. I may decry politicians who deliberately distort but fault not in the least those who hold to various views even if against what to me appears reasonable. Immigration issues connect to home lives or jobs to degrees that are open to dispute. Still, these are emotional issues. That folks bring that emotion to what they believe even if not factual forms another "reality" of how people process.
More real perhaps in the end than "facts." For example, that many American citizens oppose a path to citizenship for the 11+ million illegals may be reason enough to oppose. The goal to minimize the resulting national divide among current fellow Americans itself has value. (That there is a concurrent need among some to castigate or demonize those non-citizens who seek that better life, I DO find problematic.)
My observations are more general in nature, about people in general, how most of us do roll. Not really all that much about your specific words, your paragraph or you personally. You simply provided some examples of using or referring to those labels that triggered my observations along those lines, noted a long time ago.
Whatever the goal, we must agree what it is before we can choose the right sort of border security and/or immigration policy, because if the goal isn't clear, no strategy can be much better. In similar fashion, we must agree what is a true threat to out national security, our economy, our way of life, so we can know what fears and concerns are truly warranted. Same with what America has stood to gain from immigration (both legal and illegal) after many decades of paying these people to be here, work here.
What is the true cost/benefit analysis and then..., at what cost do we want to accomplish what goals?
This is what we've elected our government representatives to broker on our behalf, and all I can think to add as I sign off now is this. "May the Force be with us!"
So, are we going into another government shutdown on February 16th? Anyone hedging guesses or bets? Curious to see if he actually goes forward with this National Emergency declaration, I think it's all politics and his attempt at scare tactics.
So, are we going into another government shutdown on February 16th? Anyone hedging guesses or bets? Curious to see if he actually goes forward with this National Emergency declaration, I think it's all politics and his attempt at scare tactics.
Trump does not appear to have any good options with now diminished Senate support. What would be sensible would be to pour money into border security, with some portion going to rebuild current walls. Some replacement's been happening under current appropriations.
Then there was some rhetoric the other day that Homeland Security (CBP) and local officials work together to justify the need for any expansion to Congress.
Since our executive branch started this off by politicizing what should not have been (all the Trumpian rhetoric), this sounds reasonable.
Trump could claim more overall border security ( a win) with no new infrastructure prohibition.
Dems better get on that negotiating then....trump opened the government...to negotiate....
They are negotiating - within Appropriations, Republicans and Democrats. Durbin spoke a few minute ago after a session that included a wall briefing. No progress, he says.
I've got to sign off too, but here again the facts really don't matter as much as how we feel about asylum seekers in general...
Not explaining anything here that anyone doesn't really know in their hearts, but it helps to get to the heart of the matter and not pretend like all the rest matters all that much when, quite simply, some Americans could really care less about the plight of an asylum seeker while others care plenty. The reasons people feel one way or the other are varied and born of personal perspective that tends to be largely a function of where we live, how we think, how we were raised and of course..., our personal experience with immigrants and asylum seekers, just for starters.
Here is reading perhaps more worthwhile along these lines, about how we tend to feel differently about who we are as Americans and what our obligations should or should not be along these lines. It is very easy to see and hear all the anti-asylum-seeking opinions and the reasons for them. "America can't help everybody," for example. And then there are opinions like this...
Which is right or wrong, more or less moral, ethical, practical, American?
Simply depends on who you ask, but how we feel as a country in general is what makes the numbers matter. What numbers are too high, at what cost? Is it worth it? Can't answer those questions until we as a country can agree on the goal...
Your questions are hypothetical with no doubt your full knowledge that a goal the country can agree on is not in sight. What to do in the interim? One approach is to follow the law, as imperfect as it may be then attempt to legislate desired changes.
THIS is what Trump is not doing for "the wall" by resorting to a shutdown and possible national emergency in the absence of Congressional appropriations. It is also what he is not doing with various extra-legal if not unlawful attempts to prevent the aslyees from even filing asylum applications.
I finally watched the video in your cite. There, too, the immigration activist is advocating for changes for the asylum process is painfully difficult and, in the end, relatively few qualify. The problem Trump faces with the ongoing caravans? The front door is somewhat open even if the last door remains shut. He needs a fix, a legal one. The Courts have, so far, overturned his executive order and the memos from Justice.
As for my personal views; they are nuanced. It's more than possible to answer your questions one way (and advocate for accepting X-number of refugees) but still find the asylum process is not the appropriate means. Unlike Trump, I don't in the least fault someone for getting onto a truck or bus or heading north. These people do not begin, however, to appreciate the complexity of US law. It's a thicket that in the end traps both them and Trump.
Asylum law although based in the same international (and domestic) principals as those under which we accept refugees is administered as a legalistic process. THAT does not suit itself to this situation; hence the issue of familial separation and how to care for children. Then, too, there is my earlier reference to the ability of a country to predetermine the number of refugees it will accept while the number of asylees is unlimited.
Admittedly, that's in theory not in practice due to the expense of the admissions procedure and the burdens it places on applicants.
Only Trump has the means to sort this out or, at minimum, work with Congress to attempt. That is his responsibility as executive chief of this nation. His response here ... another fail.
Blathering to the public and the sending in of the troops. Still ... I suppose as long as he keeps prospective aslyees off U.S. soil (with no opportunity to open their mouths) he will prevail. As long as migrants do not fall under pesky "due process," that portion of the Constitution he may well be able to sidestep.
This other nonsense ... not so easily accomplished.
So, are we going into another government shutdown on February 16th? Anyone hedging guesses or bets? Curious to see if he actually goes forward with this National Emergency declaration, I think it's all politics and his attempt at scare tactics.
Funny how you only attribute Trump to scare tactics when Pelosi and Schumer are doing the same thing. I believe he will declare a National Emergency rather than shutting down the government again. The above two aren't going to budge and it's much better for all concerned to go that route.
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.
I believe he will declare a National Emergency rather than shutting down the government again. The above two aren't going to budge and it's much better for all concerned to go that route.
