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.
IF you are really a DACA kid, then you are perfectly aware that a “permanent solution” is more than just deport or not deport. Bush had 8 years and couldn’t get it done. Obama had 8 years (2 with a super Majority) and wouldn’t get it done. The executive memo that Obama signed is going to lose in the US Supreme Court, we know this because the similar DAPA already lost.
President Trump has given 2 years worth of extensions for Congress to pass Legislation to “save” the DACA people. Without that Legislation, there WILL be deportations. He has just offered another 3 year extension.
It must be crystal clear at this point that the last thing in the world that the Leftists want is a DACA Solution. Nancy Pelosi continues to say DACA is off the table.
Sorry. I had a grammatical error in my previous post. I'm not a DACA kid.
I thought Pelosi wanted a DACA agreement. Wasn't that what the $25 billion bill was for? Didn't she say she wanted a permanent DACA agreement when Trump came back with his temporary one?
Well, they apparently sent a specific proposal today so its not just meaningless or unspecific.
Democrats might not want to give Trump a wall and have been painted as being against border security, but as I said, if they can re-frame the public debate as "we [Democrats] are offering opening up the government with billions for border security in the form of technology, manpower, immigration judges, checkpoints, and strategic barriers and Trump turned it down because he wants a $6 billion wall instead" that is going to bad news for the GOP.
Won't work. Strategic barriers and checkpoints would be at least components of a "wall." Which the Democrats don't want the Republicans getting, because Trump will latch onto those elements and claim victory. Pelosi is already on record as "no wall," so her victory condition precludes any victory on the Trump side. Which paints the Democrats into a corner as to what they can offer as much as Trump's insistance on a physical barrier he can refer to as a "wall" paints Republicans into a corner. Essentially the way each side has the lines currently drawn it's an either-or proposition. Except either-or is turning into "none of the above."
Won't work. Strategic barriers and checkpoints would be at least components of a "wall." Which the Democrats don't want the Republicans getting, because Trump will latch onto those elements and claim victory. Pelosi is already on record as "no wall," so her victory condition precludes any victory on the Trump side. Which paints the Democrats into a corner as to what they can offer as much as Trump's insistance on a physical barrier he can refer to as a "wall" paints Republicans into a corner. Essentially the way each side has the lines currently drawn it's an either-or proposition. Except either-or is turning into "none of the above."
We might be better off if no one "wins."
If Trump were smarter, he could have taken the position that strategic checkpoints were part of a "virtual wall" and declared victory. But he has taken the position that it has to be a huge, expansive physical barrier. Lindsey Graham gave him that out weeks ago and Trump dropped the ball, whether intentionally or unintentionally. I don't believe the Democrats are against strategic barriers and checkpoints and I think the letter they sent today supports my belief in that regard.
I don't believe the Democrats are against strategic barriers and checkpoints and I think the letter they sent today supports my belief in that regard.
Belief is a wonderful thing...except it has little to do with facts. Fact: the Democrats are opposed to a "wall." That means that while they might in principle be in favor of "strategic barriers," any "strategic barrier" that can be referred to as a "wall" all of a sudden they'll be opposed to. Because wall. Doesn't it makes sense? Not really. Politics often doesn't. But the point is both sides are too dug in right now, and while they're trying to appear like they want to make a deal (hence Trump's offer on DACA...except oops it's "temporary," and Pelosi's offer of "strategic barriers"...but no "strategic barriers" that can be referred to as "walls" because she refuses anything called a "wall.")
Anyway, right now it's still a bit of a show, with each side trying to appear like they're willing to give away the world while the other side is being unreasonably stubborn. When the fact is neither side is willing to budge, but neither of their sets of pet media outlets will ever admit to that.
Unlikely. First of all, I'm not sure the Democrats even want border security in the first place. For another, "technologically advanced border security" is a meaningless phrase unless it includes details. And unless there's some sort of physical barrier included, it's not going to be workable at all (you can have drones and cameras and sensors all over the place, but people will figure out how to spoof all that). But, as you pointed out, the Democrats don't want to give in on anything that the Republicans can refer to as a "wall," which will pretty much include any physical barrier they can remotely get away with calling a "wall." Fence? Must be a "wall." Natural mountain or canyon barrier? Oops, that's a "wall."
As long as each side insists on not handing the other a policial victory there's a problem. Eventually they're going to just have to be satisfied with both sides ending up with a partial political victory. But no one's interested in that yet.
the problem is letting people in in the first place. once their asylum is denied or their visa expires, game over its too late. they are on their way and lost in the system.
I'm all for drones for surveillance purposes. They can be helpful. But the beginning and end of any real discussion on border control is based on keeping people out in the first place. That means some kind of barrier.
the problem is letting people in in the first place. once their asylum is denied or their visa expires, game over its too late. they are on their way and lost in the system.
I'm all for drones for surveillance purposes. They can be helpful. But the beginning and end of any real discussion on border control is based on keeping people out in the first place. That means some kind of barrier.
Or, better yet, discouraging them from trying to come here in the first instance by removing the incentive for them to do so for a tiny fraction of the cost of the wall...
I really don't have hard-line stances invented by political parties because I'm not a member of one.
I'm cool with the 2nd, but I don't want people with serious criminal histories or substantial mental impairments (though genetics or disease) to have guns without some sort of evaluation.
I also don't think everyone needs to have easy access to heavy-duty munitions. I'm talking handguns and shotguns here, some rifles, etc. I don't want to impede hunting or encourage school shootings, basically. I'm actually opposed to concealed carry and I think you need to meet some pretty stringent requirements to be allowed to conceal a weapon. Open carry is fine, but I think that places of business and municipalities should be able to disallow it if they choose.
I'm all for border security, but not a wall. Some fencing and some wall segments in key areas, along with more border patrol, more staffing to work asylum cases, and more high-tech detection of illegal border crossings (photography, video, drones, looking into force field tech, etc) is preferable and will be less wasteful spending of security funds.
DACA. I do want that. Nobody born here and growing up here should suddenly be deported to a place that's not home where they never lived. That's wrong. We are a nation of immigrants.
Military spending. I am fine with this as the military sees fit to ensure safety. Could probably bring in some efficiency experts, but I'll be damned if I want troops in crappy gear so generals can still fund expensive bombs and tech.
Taxes. I'm fine with raising them, but only if we get....
Universal healthcare. I do want this. Maybe a hybrid system, like the one in Australia. Or the one in Norway. But, yes... this is worth it.
Also... pension. I want senior citizens to get to retirement age and not worry whether they'll have meds and a roof over their heads. Higher taxes will do that, too. I know we constantly hear from these so-called investment geniuses about how they want their money in their own pocket, but let's face it, people do NOT save enough and these people who think they want that money would be way happier knowing they could reach retirement age and peace out of the workforce, no fear at all. Besides, they are only parroting the talking points that wealthy politicians and lobbyists drill into their heads because those people DO have a lot of money to retire on and they don't care about regular folks.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Or, better yet, discouraging them from trying to come here in the first instance by removing the incentive for them to do so for a tiny fraction of the cost of the wall...
that's part of the solution as well but doesnt minimize the need for a barrier.
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.
