It's about all the open borders types who live in gated communities or walled estates. It's about the folks who want to ban guns for everyone except their armed private security.
I don't know what Craig is talking about. I'm the person who wrote it. I don't live in a gated community, I live in an urban community next door to folks with mental illness and surrounded by folks from all different cultures.. who is in church relationships with immigrant folks.
So that first comment from Craig is clearly not directed towards me and seems a bit meaningless or out of context here.
And on the second comment, I do not own guns and I do not have an armed private security nor do I know anyone who does. So I have no idea what Craig is talking about, other than just trying to automatically going on the attack, Maybe.
What I'm talking about in my poem is those who would let fear dictate policy rather than reason, Justice or compassion. And when people let fear dictate policy, they often times will come up with irrational nonsensical Solutions like a border wall that all one has to do is go over or go around to beat.
I assumed you wrote this bit of doggerel, and am responding in a more tongue in cheek way to the larger issue.
Clearly anyone who would build a wall to stop a bird is insane, but that's not really the point.
What does seem to be the point is that Dan thinks that a wall won't be 100% effective, and he thinks that people seriously might believe that it will be 100% effective. I'll say that teeing off on an argument that isn't being made isn't necessarily effective.
Although, I think that your last actually made my jesting comments on topic. Clearly many people (including those who advocate for open borders) believe that ereact8ng walls will increase their security. Once can only assume that you would criticize the folx that live in gated communities, operate things like stadia, arenas, courthouses, government facilities, are all acting from unwarranted fear and that they should tear down the walls (or similar barriers) immediately.
If you can point out what you believe are peoples motivations for implementing policy, it only seems fair to point out those that hypocritically don't live by the same rules they'd impose on others.
FYI, you're right, the wall Israel build has proven very effective of stopping suicide bombers who espouse the "religion of peace", unfortunately it hasn't worked particularly well at stopping the regular barrages of mortars, artillery, and missiles, lobbed indiscriminately at unsuspecting and innocent civilians.
Again, my point is, it's rather obvious that a 15 foot wall can be beat by 20 ft ladder. A wall that goes 100 miles can be beat by walking 102 miles. The point is that experts say this is a waste of money and it's a huge waste of money.
Add to that how Trump has made this a racist issue trying to block the brown Invaders, as the new conservatives call them, just makes it evil instead of the welcoming of strangers that more moral and rational people would speak of. That's my point.
My point is rather obvious. The larger question then is why conservatives would defend the racist reasoning xenophobia in fear behind the current new conservative push for walls to keep out Invaders.
Yes Dan, we understand that you believe that there should be no impediment to crossing the borders. Please, provide the actual quotes where the “race” of those who cross our border in violation of our current law is explicitly stated.
Your point is obvious, it’s just not compelling and not consistent.
That you don't understand my position or understand how it's consistent doesn't mean that it's not compelling or consistent. It just means you don't understand.
Trump and his racist KKK type supporters have made it clear that this is about race from day one were accused Mexicans of sending rapists and killers. Again that you don't understand the racism involved doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ask your friends of color to explain it to you.
Dan, you are right about something. You are correct that no matter what people do to enforce the law or protect themselves, there are other people who will go out of their way to surmount those protective measures.
Craig, what are you talkin about? None of your comments appear to have any relation to the topic of the post. None of your claims appear to be connected to reality.
So I'm not sure what it is you're even trying to say, just sounds like gobbledygook from someone who's not understanding a conversation. It's as if I'm talking about the best recipes for spaghetti and you're offering something like, "...On the other hand, the moonwalk was mostly filmed in Arizona in the 1930s and dainty rabbits are notorious for having bad dandruff issues."
You're not making sense.
What I'm saying is simple.
1. The experts tell us that a wall will be terribly expensive and ineffective.
2. Despite Trump's irrational and fear-mongering claims, we have no emergency On the Border to the South beyond the emergency of people seeking refuge and being blocked from receiving it.
3. There is no huge influx of terrorist or drugs coming across the border that a wall would stop. Trump's claims to the contrary are just false claims.
If you're not commenting on these points, you're off topic. Stop going off-topic or go away.
In spite of your hateful spin on it, you are right in your understanding standing of my point if you're saying that, if people are escaping danger and they come across a wall they WILL go over it. Because, of course they would. They would be stupid and immoral not to do so.
To hell with f****** walls that stop people seeking Refuge. That is just a basic reasonable moral position to take. Before you comment here any further can you clarify that you agree with that reality? That it is immoral to build a wall to stop people seeking Refuge from harm?
To reiterate, the wall does not stop terrorists, does not stop drug dealers... neither of which tend to use these open spaces for Crossing.
And they don't stop people seeking Refuge, either, although they probably do make it more difficult for the poor folks trying to do that. Certainly the xenophobic and fear-mongering demonization of refugees and immigrants does make it more difficult. That is what is stupid and evil because it is evil to stop people from seeking safety. Do you agree with that notion? I would say it's also evil to make it difficult for people seeking safety. Do you agree with that reality?
The question put to you, Craig, was do you agree that is evil to stop people or make it difficult for people to seek safety? It's a pretty simple question that any right-thinking moral person should be able to answer because the answer is clear and obvious. The balls in your Park.
Wow, that’s impressive. I answered that question in the comment you deleted.
The answer, again, is that it is wrong to “stop people from seeking safety”. Calling it “evil” (or my comments “hateful”), simply diminishes actual “evil” and “hateful”.
Of course, I’m not (nor is anyone else) suggesting that people be “stopped” from seeking safety. Further, no one is suggesting that “race” is the primary factor in this debate.
The problem you have is that you can’t prove the premises underlying your position, so you’ve decided that you just won’t and instead will attack me.
Here's one fact for you Craig: the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States was lower in 2016 than at any time since 2004, mainly to a large drop in the number of Mexicans, coming into the country. And it is still falling.
And yet, there is no wall.
Explain that, please. Using fact based evidence. _____
Regarding race, was the poll tax or citizenship question entry to vote in the South explicitly racist? No. Was slavery explicitly racist? No. Marshall claims the slavery cannot even be found in the Constitution, so, to him - and perhaps yourself - the Constitution isn't explicitly racist.
But, as Chris Wallace hammered Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Fox: Sanders: “We know that roughly nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally..." Wallace: "Wait wait, ’cause I know the statistic,” he said. “I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. Do you know where those 4,000 people come or where they’re captured? Airports... The state department says there hasn’t been any terrorists found coming across the southern border from Mexico." _____
One more question: do you think the Republicans would have nominated a candidate with an illegal immigrant wife from a Latin American country?
"Let me tell you one thing,” President Trump said. “She has got it so documented, so she's going to have a little news conference over the next couple of weeks.” That was August 2016, when questions about Melania Trump's immigration history first cropped up. It has now been 28 months, and that news conference has not happened.
And if numbers are going down, now lower than anytime since 2004, how is this not regulation?
Of course, Craig will ignore me. It hurts his pride to have to answer to someone who uses facts rather than merely naming their - somewhere - existence
Another fact. We do not have open borders. Haven't had since the 1880s. What we have, like most other countries, are controlled borders. What we will never have, which Marshall and Craig seem to want, are closed borders where there is a fence around everything.
BTW, even Bernie Sanders is against open borders. Get your facts right, Craig before you enter a mature conversation.
This focus on the "wall" from both sides is simplistic and more of a diversion than anything. If the conversation is simply going to focus on one part of a multifaceted bigger picture, it's probably not worth having.
Unfortunately "walls" work. If these sorts of barriers didn't work, they wouldn't be everywhere. They aren't the be all and end all, but as one part of a larger strategy, they work.
If Trump was even reasonably aware, he'd stop talking about the wall and expand the discussion. If the left was serious about anything but blocking Trump, we would have seen something more comprehensive by now.
One additional problem that both sides have is focusing on one relatively small slice of the reasons why people cross the border in violation of US law. Some focus on only those who cross for bad reasons and try to project on the rest. Some focus on the "refugees" and try to project their feelings across a broad spectrum.
In all honesty, this problem has been kicked down the road by multiple administrations and congresses. As long as the debate is more about bashing Trump than about making progress, it's simply a colossal waste of time.
Jesus god, Craig, facts don’t disappear just because you ignore them.
Chris Wallace: "Wait wait, ’cause I know the statistic,” he said. “I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. Do you know where those 4,000 people come or where they’re captured? Airports.
It’s not that I didn’t answer, as much as my disagreeing with your premise.
No, it's LITERALLY that you didn't answer the question that was asked. It was an easy question that any moral rational person should be able to answer. It establishes a basic human rights and justice principle as a starting point for this conversation.
Last time to answer directly and clearly, Craig...
1. Do you agree that you literally did not answer the question that was asked of you?
2. Do you agree that it is wrong/evil/immoral/atrocious to try to prevent people from seeking refuge from harm?
Simple questions. Answer both with the only right answer there is or I'll remove your comments as they are not being offered in good faith.
As to the "focus on the wall," the ONLY reason that Dems are focusing on the wall is because the idiot and perverted liar in charge keeps trying to build it and keeps repeating the lies that it's there to prevent terrorists and invading brown people from entering, playing upon racist tropes that his racist supporters (the KKK types) rally around and which his other followers keep defending, even though it is a racist trope he's offering.
By all means, END the attempts to "build a wall" and deal with the problems of WHY are there refugees and immigrants at the borders... the dire straits of people seeking refuge and a better life. Make entry easier, not more difficult, for people seeking refuge. If you want to fund something to make a difference, FULLY FUND the "legal" ports of entry so that there are plenty of people to process refugee claims in a prompt and timely manner, for instance. Work out the citizenship plans for DACA folk. Those are actually helpful actions that IF Trump supporters focused on THOSE sorts of things, THEN you wouldn't be participating in Trump's and the KKK types of folk's dog whistles and racist actions/plans.
A wall "works" to keep people out when one builds a secure wall all the way around whatever it is you're trying to protect.
A wall fails - and is wrong and evil - when it prevents people from seeking safety.
A wall fails if all you have to do is climb over it.
We are a nation of doors, not walls. Let us live up to our better ideals, not cave to racist fears.
Some focus on only those who cross for bad reasons and try to project on the rest. Some focus on the "refugees" and try to project their feelings across a broad spectrum.
One other requirement, Craig: Admit that this is a bullshit claim that you CAN NOT support with data (the suggestion that the refugee problem is only a "small slice" of the explanation of why people are crossing our borders) or provide data that shows it's factually not a large problem for many of those coming from Latin America (and other places, as well, but Trump's been focusing mainly on the brown people from the South).
From a news story about the October so-called caravan of refugees last year...
"In that case, about 1,500 people started their journey in southern Mexico, but the caravan dwindled down to a few hundred by the time they reached the Mexican border with California in April. And according to federal data, most of them did exactly what they said they were going to do: presented themselves at U.S. ports of entry and applied for asylum.
According to data and congressional testimony from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials, 401 members of that caravan requested asylum at ports of entry, a legal right enshrined in U.S. law and international conventions the U.S. is party to.
Federal officials interviewed those asylum-seekers and found 374 of them, or 93 percent, passed the first test on the path toward asylum, where they must demonstrate that they have a “credible fear” of returning to their home country. That’s higher than the 76 percent approval rate that all asylum-seekers received in fiscal year 2018, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services data."
By Dan's own admission here, those who lawfully sought asylum were taken care of. Don't see the issue, or how this admission mitigates anything put forth about whole border wall issue.
What's more, regardless of how many made it passed the first phase of the process, that's no guarantee that they'll be granted asylum. For those who have a true and legitimate reason, I hope they do. But if denied, it doesn't mean that legitimate claims were no matter how Dan insists that all claims must be believed. It simply doesn't work that way, nor is there any intelligent reason he can give that it should be so.
The right answer (if you're a reasonable and moral person) to the question: Is it wrong to prevent people from seeking safety? is always Yes, it is wrong. Of course it is!
If you think your answer is a valid moral option, then that's on you, but I'm not inclined to let such nonsense stand here.
if someone comes here advocating lynching Mexicans or beating women, I'd delete those comments, too, most likely. This is not a forum for advocating evil or wrong and I think most reasonable and moral adults can admit that of course it is wrong to block people from seeking refuge.
Probably, what you THINK you're being clever and doing is addressing some other question (does building a wall make it difficult for people to seek refuge? or something like that...). But I was ONLY asking the very simple, very straightforward question of IS it wrong to block someone from seeking refuge from harm? There IS only one moral and just and reasonable answer to that question.
The reason why I'm trying to get you to agree to basic reason is because I am a man of principles and operate from a place of principles. Thus, it is important to establish some reasonable and just and moral principles before considering policy.
And again, that's just basic common sense, nothing spectacular in that.
But the Trump-conservatives have had their minds so poisoned by the lies of "fake news" and "THEY are the enemy of the state" that you all can't even agree on some very basic moral starting points/principles.
Marshall, you are speaking from a place of ignorance. Go educate yourself. Volunteer with refugee organizations for a year... or even six months. Visit immigrants in their homes and have them in your homes for some months. Do some reading outside of your little white echo chambers.
Then come back here, let me know you've done that, and we can talk about policy.
Until then, a person speaking from a place of ignorance has nothing of significance to offer.
Craig, I told you I'd give you ONE chance to answer a reasonable question with only one obvious moral and rational answer:
"DO YOU AGREE THAT IT IS WRONG TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM SEEKING REFUGE FROM HARM?"
JUST that question. I wasn't asking you about any greater political points, just one clear obvious question with one clear obvious moral and rational answer, trying to establish a principle to begin looking at the greater political points.
Now, I'll be gracious and give you one more chance, but only one.
IF you want to try again to answer THAT question and only that question, you can. You can do this by beginning FIRST with an apology for failing to understand (or whatever it is that caused you to dodge and evade a clear direct answer), and then giving the only moral and rational answer available to this question.
It should look something like this...
Dan, I am sorry for failing to get the point that you were asking about the principle involved... Yes, of course, it is wrong to prevent people from seeking refuge. As far as that goes, yes, I agree, such an action, if and when it happens, is wrong, clearly wrong. There is no other moral or rational answer to that question.
Ball's in your court.
I truly don't think either of you two gentlemen are understanding the ethical and moral questions at play here, or the ramifications of supporting (even in your milquetoast manner) a man who fans the flames of racism, but if you can demonstrate that you now understand the principle I'm asking about, you may give it a try.
I’ve answerd that question multiple times, even given you the “right” answer, you continuing to lie about that demonstrable fact only undermines your morality argument.
You first asked the first of many versions of your question at 6:00 PM on January 7th, since then you've adjusted and modified it multiple times.
My first answer was deleted by you.
My second answer was at 12:50 on January 7, "The answer, again, is that it is wrong to “stop people from seeking safety”."
Again, I gave the "right" answer on January 8 at 12:47 PM, "I agree that to preempt people from “seeking” a safer situation is wrong."
I'm sorry that the reality is that I gave you the "right" answer 2 days ago and that you're simply choosing to lie about that and add requirements after the fact to justify your lies.
You've lost any credibility you might have had regarding either morality or reality since you've chosen to go down this road.
The ball is in your court. You can acknowledge the reality that I gave you the "right" answer to your question, and that you chose to delete my comments anyway, or you can ignore reality and continue to lie. Your call.
"Volunteer with refugee organizations for a year... or even six months"
I've spent more than a decade working extensively with refugees, I think I've done enough to clear this hurdle.
"Visit immigrants in their homes and have them in your homes for some months."
Again, more than a decade of spending time with refugees both in and out of their homes.
"Do some reading outside of your little white echo chambers."
Assuming that I don't is quite a leap. I'd love to see you prove that I haven't.
"Then come back here, let me know you've done that, and we can talk about policy."
Again, the assumption that one is unqualified to talk policy unless they've jumped through your hoops is quite the expression of hubris. I guess that fact that I've done more than you've asked, including working to ameliorate conditions on countries that people immigrate from, just insn't quite enough for you.
"Until then, a person speaking from a place of ignorance has nothing of significance to offer."
Again, since I've exceeded your arbitrary requirements, I guess I'm not speaking from ignorance, apparently that doesn't make a bit of difference.
This conversation raises the questions,”Are all wall immoral, or just this one particular wall?” “If walls are immoral, what other inanimate objects are immoral?”, “Is there a worldview that explains the immorality of inanimate objects?”
I agree with Craig, Dan. Sending Marshall out to try to love people may well not change him at all. Look at Craig. He thinks being a Christian is doing what he has to do to stay in the good book. He has to love people because that's what's required. He's totally missed the call to actually love people and help those people not with what he needs, but with what they need. His Christ is a lawgiver, not a liberator of souls from prison. His faith is a list he has derived from a book, not a love of other lives. He, still, is in prison, and making shiny new license plates.
And before you say I'm guessing, you know it's true. You've seen the evidence from his consistent position of excusing brutality in the name of doing what is "right" - all these many years.
Craig, I'll review your claims that you have actually answered the question that I asked directly as soon as I can look at it in more detail. I'll allow your comments to stand for now. But to your last comment, question about what walls are bad and what walls are not bad? Or, are all walls bad? This is precisely why I was pushing you to answer directly the question that I was asking... To help establish the principle. The principle - which you appear to agree with - is that taking actions to block or stop people from seeking safety is wrong.
Given that principle, then a wall that has four sides that is designed to keep a lion in the zoo, for instance, is that wrong? No, because that wall is keeping people safe, keeping people out of a dangerous location.
(Now we could get into a debate about whether zoos are moral options, but that's a different debate.)
Walls around our house that keep people from breaking in and taking our stuff on our own property, that's legitimate. It's our property. Nothing immoral in that.
(And even in that case, however, if a person was running from violence and they broke in through my walls to seek safety, that I would say is not wrong. I would not prosecute them for seeking safety because seeking safety is a legitimate Moral cause. A rational moral cause.)
So, walls built to keep private property private are not in and of themselves are not irrational or immoral.
But walls that prevent one group of people in the public from going to another public place while they are seeking safety, those walls would be immoral and irrational because it's wrong to stop people from seeking safety as we have already agreed.
What’s to review, I gave you two direct quotes that demonstrate that not only did I answer your question, but I gave the answer that you demand is the “right” answer. I even gave you the dates and times of the comments.
As to your last. You seem to be suggesting that some walls are ok, and some aren’t. I leave of you not addressing the morality issue.
You seem to suggest that “private” walls are “moral” while public walls aren’t. Or perhaps whales designed to keep people safe are moral while walls designed to “prevent safety” are immoral.
Again, ignoring the fact that you’re assigning morality to inanimate objects, let’s deal in reality.
Let’s look at public spaces that are surrounded by walls or physical barriers. Airports, stadia, government buildings, parks, just to name a few. These places are surrounded by barriers to regulate access to people who are supposed to have access. By definition they keep the majority of people out. Are you suggesting that it’s immoral to regulate who has access to a public space?
You also seem to be suggesting that the territory allotted to a sovereign nation is “public” in the sense that non citizens should have the same unfettered access to that space as citizens have. Yet, don’t we (as US citizens) have some degree of ownership of our country?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be advocating complete unfettered freedom of movement across national borders. (Or complete unfettered access for anyone to cross the US border) This unfettered, unregulated access seems to be quite a radical position to take.
What's to review is that I went through all your posts in my email and I couldn't find your words you cite above.
But I'll give it to you. You are CLEARLY agreeing with me, then, on the principle,
It is WRONG to block people from seeking safety/refuge from harm.
You and I agree. Marshall probably disagrees.
If Marshall disagrees, will you tell him he's wrong (of course he's wrong!)?
Yes, our public land (i.e., the land in the US that is not privately held, the literally public land) is not private.
I'm saying that it is a human liberty to be self-determining and part of being self determining is the freedom to move from Here to There if Here is not safe and There is, in your estimation. Because OF COURSE it is.
You appear to be fine with setting some pretty stringent limitations on that based upon the reality that you were fortunate enough to be born in a nation that is relatively wealthy and safe. IF you had been born in a nation that wasn't, perhaps you'd feel differently.
I am not for complete unfettered freedom of movement, but I'm MUCH closer to something like that than you are. I'd say the restrictions of moving from Place A to Place B ought to be more about ecological limits (i.e., if a desert area with X amount of water can only handle Z amount of people, then it is reasonable to strive to restrict population to somewhere safely under Z).
But given a safe and prosperous Nation A (that can easily accommodate a larger population) and a Dangerous and Struggling Nation B, then of course, a person should have the liberty to move from Nation A to B. Or, at the very least, those from the Unsafe B should have the option/liberty to move to one of several Nation A's that are safe and prosperous enough to handle it.
Do you oppose such an idea, that people should NOT be able to freely move from one unsafe nation to a safe nation?
If your children were living in the Unsafe Nation, would you STILL oppose such a basic human liberty.
That’s why I gave you the date and times from each one. They’re right out in public for anyone to see at my blog. Maybe you should have read the entirety of the comments before you deleted them.
But thank you for “giving” me the reality that my comments from days ago were “right” and had you lived up to your original claim, you wouldn’t have deleted my comments.
The public land in the US is owned by the federal government, “we the people”, as it were. It’s owned jointly by all US citizens, as such it’s equivalent to private property as it relates to citizens of other countries. All countries have the right to deal with their borders as they wish.
You seem to be confusing this freedom of movement you champion with a desire to regulate and exercise control over border access.
You keep saying that the US has the ability to absorb virtually unlimited amounts of people, if you listen to the progressives who control our local government (and extra-governmental entities) our metropolitan area can’t adequately house the people already here, yet you argue that “self determination” says we should do just that? Where is all this housing going to come from? Our unemployment rate is pretty low, where will these folx find jobs? How will they pay rent?
Maybe it’s not such a crisis in small cities, I’m sure y’all could accommodate a doubling or tripling of your population with no shortage of jobs or affordable housing stock, ours can’t accommodate what we have.
We, as a country need to regulate, manage, and control immigration.
"It is WRONG to block people from seeking safety/refuge from harm.
You and I agree. Marshall probably disagrees."
You have no basis for presuming such a thing, except your hate and dishonesty toward someone who confronts you with truth, facts and logic you're incapable of countering. In other words, me. You simply need to believe the worst about me you can conjure in order to avoid having to deal with the truth, facts and logic I present so easily. You kid no one except your sock puppet. If you believed it yourself, you wouldn't delete my comments.
The fact is that I do indeed agree with that principle. I totally disagree with your blatantly dishonest defense of it...or more precisely, your blatant dishonesty in attacking those who aren't 100% in agreement with you. As I said earlier before you deleted me, it is disagreement to which you refer as "a place of ignorance". Childish and unsupportable.
So again I state that I've known many immigrants in my life, both legal and otherwise, beginning with my own grandparents. I grew up around immigrants, a Polish couple across the street from the time I was five years old, as well as a friend's German father. A close high school friend was the son of a Mexican immigrant...his mother...while his father was from Japan. Another friend claimed his folks were from Spain, but we all believed he just didn't want to be known as Mexican...we didn't much care either way. I've worked with many Mexican immigrants over the years, some of whom were undoubtedly here illegally, including one woman who bragged about it.
In the refugee department, as I said I knew an old Jewish guy who had his concentration camp number on his arm. I also knew a Jewish couple who fled Europe to escape the nazis. Later, I worked with a guy who swam several miles to escape Nicolae Ceausescu's dictatorship.
These are just some of my personal experiences with immigrants and refugees. So what exactly do you think you know that I don't? What about your anecdotal history and experience makes you more expert in this issue than me exactly?
More importantly, how can you prove that you, or the "expert" immigration lawyers who inform you, are capable of determining the truthfulness of those claiming they are fleeing danger? I hold that you very likely do very little in that regard, preferring to simply take their word for it. Indeed, if they entered the country as they should, there'd be no need for you. If they entered as they should, were rejected and then ended up with you, all the more reason to suspect.
At the same time, we employ people who process such claims, who are experienced in making such determinations. Are they liars? incompetent? racist? and how the hell would YOU know?
None of which, either your anecdotal evidence or mine, has any bearing on the righteousness and justice of a wall on our southern border.
Where does Craig live? What does Craig know about the Southern border? When does Craig ever have actual facts in hand? Perhaps Craig should listen and believe the people who live by border. Their facts shoot Craig’s bullshit full of holes. It’s easy.
Wall of contention MOST TEXANS ALONG THE BORDER DON’T WANT TRUMP’S WALL, AND MANY DOUBT IT WILL BE BUILT
Many Texans who live along the U.S.-Mexico border support President Donald Trump, but their affection for the New York real estate mogul-turned-politician comes with a caveat: They do not want a wall. The Star-Telegram recently visited a 325-mile stretch of the Lone Star State’s boundary with Mexico to gauge attitudes toward the proposed wall. The trip included stops in Presidio, Big Bend National Park, Del Rio and Eagle Pass in late April, and visits with a farmer, a rancher, a wildlife biologist, a sheriff and people from many other walks of life. The reasons for their opposition to the wall are as varied as the communities that sit along the Rio Grande. Some are concerned about losing private land to make room for the structure. Others warned that building a continuous wall could cause massive flooding. Still others spoke against the potential impact on wildlife, and the state’s natural landscape. And many border residents said they had serious doubts that such a wall would succeed in reducing illegal immigration or drug smuggling — the primary justifications often cited by supporters. “Trump has done some good things with immigration, but he’s 100 percent wrong about the wall,” said Dob Cunningham, 83, a lifelong rancher and retired Border Patrol agent who owns hundreds of acres abutting the border in Quemado, north of Eagle Pass. “I haven’t found anybody — and I know people from Nogales [Arizona] to Brownsville — who wants that wall.” Statewide, 61 percent of Texans oppose building a wall, while 35 percent support it and 4 percent don’t know or declined to answer, according to a poll conducted in April by Texas Lyceum, a nonprofit leadership organization. Residents of the Lone Star State who live, work and play along the international boundary with Mexico say they are happy that the Trump administration’s plans to quickly build the wall have encountered complications in Washington. A dispute over whether to fund the wall nearly led to a federal government shutdown in March, until the president agreed to delay the plan possibly until September. On Tuesday, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney unveiled a 2018 budget that includes $2.6 billion for stepped-up border security, including $1.6 billion for a wall. Although 10 of 15 Texas counties that touch the border went for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the November presidential election, many of the people interviewed along the international boundary in late April described themselves as conservatives, and several said they voted for Trump. So their beef isn’t with the president himself. It’s with the proposed wall.
“Two Texas lawmakers — one Republican, one Democrat — warned Homeland Security Department officials Thursday that it won’t be easy to build President Donald Trump’s border wall in the Lone Star State if the private landowners have anything to say about it. GOP Rep. John Carter, chairman of the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, and Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar, whose district sits on the border with Mexico, laid out a host of reasons why landowners on the border could stifle — temporarily, at least — DHS efforts to make Trump’s hallmark campaign promise a reality.
“I’ve been warning people since day one,” Carter said at a subcommittee hearing on Trump’s fiscal 2019 budget request for Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “You’re gonna need a lot of lawyers.”
“TORNILLO — Pecan farmer Shannon Ivey is all for increasing border security. People who crossed the border illegally used to regularly cut through the fourth-generation Texan’s property in this small farming town about 40 miles from El Paso. “Prior to the fence going up, we’d have groups of 30 to 40 people coming through all at once,” said Ivey, referring to the 18-foot barrier that was built on his property during the George W. Bush administration. “But I think a combination of a fence, electronic surveillance, and boots on the ground. I think a nation has a right to secure its borders, so I’m a believer in that,” Ivey said. But he is not convinced the border needs a new barrier. “You don’t need a great wall of China. You don’t need a big, concrete wall,” he said. Others on the border question the need for a wall, as well. Polls show a majority of border residents oppose the idea, and support has been waning nationally as well.”
“President Trump gave a prime-time address Tuesday evening to make his case that Congress should provide funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border. Trump’s Oval Office address comes on the 18th day of the government shutdown, which has incapacitated federal agencies and departments from the IRS to the National Parks to the food stamp program.
Trump will follow up his Oval Office address by visiting the US-Mexico border town of McAllen, Texas, on Thursday. There, Trump will have to confront one of the biggest challenges in building support for his wall: The people who live on the border say there is no national emergency and they don’t want a wall.
McAllen’s Mayor Jim Darling deals with the daily realities of immigration on one of Texas’s busiest border-crossing areas. Darling told the Texas Standard that while the media is hyper-focused on undocumented immigrants, the people he sees at respite centers are coming into the country legally to seek asylum.
Darling could hardly disagree more with President Trump over the idea that his town is experiencing a crisis or “national emergency.” In fact, last year Darling called McAllen “the overall safest city in Texas and one of the safest in the US.”
Moreover Mayor Darling points out that nearly 40 percent of the city’s sales tax revenue — the second highest in the state — comes from shoppers from Mexico, who cross the border peaceably and contribute to the local economy.
Mayor Darling is in favor of border security and says Washington should get behind “immigration reform,” but he argues that Trump’s border wall is useless since the Rio Grande acts as a natural border. “We know where our border is and we have one,” Darling says. “A wall is really not the effective way to protect our border.”
“Moreover Mayor Darling points out that nearly 40 percent of the city’s sales tax revenue — the second highest in the state — comes from shoppers from Mexico, who cross the border peaceably and contribute to the local economy.
Mayor Darling is in favor of border security and says Washington should get behind “immigration reform,” but he argues that Trump’s border wall is useless since the Rio Grande acts as a natural border. “We know where our border is and we have one,” Darling says. “A wall is really not the effective way to protect our border.”
On the Border, Little Enthusiasm for a Wall: ‘We Have Other Problems That Need Fixing’
“A cattle rancher in southern Arizona said he had traveled to Mexico a day earlier, and he saw no emergency. The lines were long — officials have shut down the number of ways people there can cross — but there were no signs of conflict or people pressing to get in.
“There is no border problem, except for ones we are causing,” said the rancher, who said he had not had any problems with illegal border crossers on his property and who asked not to be identified out of fear of retribution from strident supporters of Mr. Trump’s planned border wall. “There’s no need for a bigger wall. There is not a border crisis down here.
Some of the worsening problems, some city officials have said, are a result of the federal government’s own management of the border. In El Paso and other cities in California and Arizona, the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has in recent weeks released thousands of immigrants unannounced onto city streets, forcing city officials and migrant shelter operators to scramble to accommodate them.
“They were just being dropped off with nothing — no money, nothing,” said Kevin Malone, one of the founders of the San Diego Rapid Response Network, which has been dealing more frequently with unannounced releases. “They’re setting people up for failure every step along the way. This is a contrived emergency. They don’t have to be doing it like this.”
From 2014 to 2017, local municipalities in South Texas had to spend $873,000 on immigrant relief efforts, expanding staffing, securing migrant assistance centers and maintaining restrooms, generators and sleeping quarters. “Then we get blasted for being sanctuary cities — get real,” said Jim Darling, the mayor of McAllen. “It’s not our fault. The feds are the ones dropping them off. What are we supposed to do?”
One of them was Cyndie Rathburn, the mayor of the Texas town of Rancho Viejo, home to what she described as a large population of conservative Trump supporters. “This is not a national security crisis,” she said as she purchased a bag of fruit from a local vendor. “President Trump has a flair for hyperbole and rhetoric.”
Marshall, like Trump, just wants to economically hurt Americans.
“Immigrant workers are actually having a net positive effect on the economy. Because of a native–born population that is both declining in numbers and increasing in age, the U.S. needs its immigrant workers. The portion of foreign–born now accounts for about 16 percent of the labor force, with immigrants and their children accounting for the vast majority of current and future workforce growth in the United States, If the number of immigrants to the United States was reduced—by deportation or barriers to further immigration—so that foreign–born represented only about 10 percent of the population, the number of working–age Americans in the coming decades would remain essentially static at the current number of 175 million. If, however, the proportion of foreign–born remains at the current level, then the number of working–age residents in the U.S. will increase by about 30 million in the next 50 years. We need these workers not just to fill jobs but to increase productivity, which has diminished sharply. We also need them because the number of the elderly drawing expensive benefits like Medicare and Social Security—the costs of which are paid for by workers’ taxes—is growing substantially. Nearly 44 million people aged 65 or older currently draw Social Security; in 2050 that number is estimated to rise to 86 million. Even undocumented workers support Social Security: Since at least 1.8 million were working with fake Social Security cards in 2010 in order to get employment but were mostly unable to draw the benefits, they contributed $13 billion that year into the retirement trust fund, and took out only $1 billion.”
This is a long read and covers many aspects of building a wall. All of which devestate Marshall and Craig’s inclinations toward brutality.
Here we see Marshall’s corrupt intentions to lie to cover up an inability to understand the lives of Americans. Which he revealed in a crying jag at Craig’s:
“And by the way, given that public sector employees are typically paid better for comparable jobs in the private sector, why don't they have an emergency fund ready to handle shutdowns, given they are not uncommon regardless of who sits in the big chair? There's been a couple dozen shut downs over the last forty/fifty years. Do they really believe they won't happen again? They all get back pay anyway, which could go back into their emergency fund.”
Trump said Mexico would pay for it. Marshall swallowed his lies and spits them back out. Marshall of all people should understand what working people go through. Oh, wait, he’s a Republican: killing his own interests in the name of bigotry is the party platform.
Does Marshall really mean to suggest that the people who go through his pockets at the airport are that comfortable that a month’s worth of bills and rent/mortgage are just a snap of the wrist? Maybe they’re all childless.
Or Marshall is an uncaring brutalizing son of a bitch. There’s a fact.
Marshall, perhaps you thought I was joking or speaking out of hand when I said go get familiar with the people and the subject you are speaking about here. I was/am serious.
You have no first hand knowledge from the point of view of immigrants/refugees. Go. Get that. Learn at the feet of some starving, desperate poor Guatemalans or Mexicans. Listen to what they are saying. Do that for six months.
When you've done that, you can come back and offer opinions on this topic. Not before.
If I wanted ignorant opinion pieces that almost certainly start from a place of racism, I'd listen to this president or read Breitbart.
The President is considering using national disaster relief funds to build the Wall.
Thousands of Americans died in Puerto Rico without the administration’s acknowledgement because disaster relief went missing. And STILL, Puerto Rico is broken.
And what does Craig care about? Whether his comments are deleted or restored.
Shallow mind: cheap heart: lost soul.
[Dan’s in a ticklish position at this point. He was adamant that I answer his questions or he’d delete all my comments. He deleted the comments with his questions answered, and claimed I hadn’t answered. Fortunately I provided demonstrable evidence that he was wrong. I suspect he’s searching for a way to save face, instead of re-posting the comments he deleted.]
Meth, cocaine, heroin: most gets smuggled through ports of entry. A wall won't stop it. Data from Trumps own administration repeatedly show that smuggled drugs, especially more potent ones like heroin and cocaine, are increasingly seized at legal ports of entry, which are not impacted by a wall.
"Other smuggling methods increasingly include the use of drones and catapults as well as joint drainage systems between border towns that have wide tunnels or tubes through which people can crawl and drugs can be pulled. But even if the land border were to become much more secure, that would only intensify the trend toward smuggling goods as well as people via boats that sail far to the north, where they land on the California coast.
Another thing to consider is that a barrier in the form of a wall is increasingly irrelevant to the drug trade as it is now practiced because most of the drugs smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico no longer arrive on the backs of those who cross illegally. Instead, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, most of the smuggled marijuana as well as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines comes through the 52 legal ports of entry on the border. These ports have to process literally millions of people, cars, trucks, and trains every week. Traffickers hide their illicit cargo in secret, state–of–the art compartments designed for cars, or under legal goods in trailer trucks. And they have learned many techniques for fooling the border patrol. Mike, a grizzled U.S. border official whom I interviewed in El Paso in 2013, shrugged: “The narcos sometimes tip us off, letting us find a car full of drugs while they send six other cars elsewhere. Such write–offs are part of their business expense. Other times the tipoffs are false. We search cars and cars, snarl up the traffic for hours on, and find nothing.”
"A closer look at the country results shows that, despite President Trump winning the state of Texas in the 2016 election, there is a concentration of support for former secretary of State Hillary Clinton that's almost exclusive to the border. In fact, per a Politico breakdown of election results, of the 14 border counties in Texas, 10 went blue for Clinton. 399,607 border residents in Texas voted for Clinton in 2016, and just 162,896 voted for Trump.
A common retort to the region's apparent disdain for the wall is that the border is populated by immigrants, particularly immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries, thus the push back against President Trump, who ran as an immigration hardliner. But even that claim is dubious: a study of Texas border families found that citizens living near the border are actually predominantly American-born citizens.
"Surprisingly, even though Texas' border counties are the gateway to Mexico, fewer than one of every five children living in those counties lives in an immigrant family," the study published by the Center for Public Policy Priorities found. Moreover, the support for the wall from Texas as a whole is meager. President Trump won the state handily, but just 43 percent of Texans support his border wall, while 53 percent oppose it, according to a Quinnipiac poll published on April 19.
Similar trends can be seen in New Mexico, Arizona and California, the three other states bordering Mexico.
Marshall denies racism on immigration. Ignorant of his own party’s immoral ideology.
Conservative Immigration Scholar: Black and Hispanic Immigrants Are Dumber Than European Immigrants
Jason Richwine, who coauthored a Heritage Foundation study on immigration, didn’t just argue that certain minorities are dumber in his scholarship—he also said it at a public panel.
Marshall and Craig are liars with zero credibility. I haven’t read a fact about actual issues stated by either of them in over a year.
“Jan. 4, 2018 WASHINGTON — Four months after President Trump rescinded an Obama-era program shielding young unauthorized immigrants, the White House and Senate negotiators are inching toward a deal that would restore the protections, while also beefing up border security.
“Obama couldn’t do it. Bush couldn’t do it. I think you can do it,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told Mr. Trump at the meeting. “There’s a bill to be had. If you want it bad enough, we’ll get it and it will be good for the country. Everybody has got to give a little bit.”
“I think we’re narrowing the differences,” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said Thursday, after a group of Republican senators met at the White House with Mr. Trump. The president has invited members of both parties to meet with him to discuss immigration next week.
Overhauling the nation’s immigration laws is a goal that has eluded presidents since President Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping measure in 1986 that offered amnesty to nearly three million illegal immigrants. Mr. Cornyn and other Republicans say they are optimistic that Mr. Trump can break the logjam.
The president also used Thursday’s meeting to reiterate his demand for a border wall.
After Thursday’s meeting, Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, said Mr. Trump was not insisting on a massive physical wall.
“People want to paint his definition, that it’s some 2,000-mile-long, 30-foot-high wall of concrete,” Mr. Lankford said. “That’s not what he means, and that’s not what he’s trying to say.”
The senator continued: “There’s going to be border fencing in some areas, there’s going to be vehicular barricades, there’s going to be technology, greater manpower in some areas. Different parts, whether they’re mountainous or whether they’re open deserts, need different solutions.”
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who also attended Thursday’s meeting, said Wednesday that he expected a “very good compromise” to be ready by the end of the month, and that it would have a mix of border security provisions.
“I hate to use the word ‘wall,’ because that implies you might want a steel wall for 2,000 miles,” said Mr. Grassley, who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over immigration. “We want border security. Sometimes it’s wall, sometimes it’s more border personnel. I t might be electronic surveillance, drones. The idea is that people come to this country with papers.”
When anyone says, national crisis, they are clearly lying.
“Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) met privately with Trump at the White House in January, and the two had what was described as the "Cheeseburger Summit." After the meeting, the Democratic leader seemed optimistic that he and the president had come up with the "framework" for an immigration deal.
As we discussed at the time, the basic contours of the deal were straightforward: Schumer was willing to accept funding for a border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers.
After Trump negotiated the terms, the White House balked: Chief of Staff John Kelly called Schumer soon after to explain the plan wasn't far enough to the right for Republicans. Trump himself declared that he'd need far more in any deal, including significant cuts to legal immigration.”
Why am I deleting your comments, Marshall? I've already answered that. You are speaking from a place of absolute ignorance. Go, spend some time with some refugees. Then come back and we'll talk.
But beyond that, look, we're 60 comments into this "conversation" and the two of you are not saying anything beyond silly defenses of what is not defensible. I'm entirely sure that both of you all are blind to the racism fanned by this administration and the racist reasoning for these false claims about a "national emergency" to stop the "invasion" of "bad" brown people from the South.
But that you don't see it/understand it/recognize it for what it is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
So, go spend time with refugees, Marshall. Maybe it will help you. Although it does not appear to have helped Craig, but it can't hurt.
Refugee from violence requiring humanitarian assistance? No. Brown baby.
Border Agent? No. Brown man.
Border agents share opposing motivations regarding the Wall. Most Texas agents, and politicians, (of varying colors) downplay the Wall and ask for 10,000 more agents. Why? Jobs and economy.
Other agents (of varying colors) want the Wall. Why? Relieves them of driving hundreds of miles every day, back and forth, getting out in all kinds of weather. Instead, sit and monitor instruments.
Most drugs are smuggled into the United States onboard fishing boats, trains, tractor-trailers and ordinary cars that come into the country at legal ports of entry, according to former cartel members who've testified in the trial of notorious cartel leader Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman. Some cartel members have testified about using underground tunnels. But none have said they've transported drugs into the United States at unwalled sections of the border.
Interestingly, Stan at the Birds of the Air blog posted a position today that is actually very similar to mine and the progressive (and I believe, moral and rational) position. He unfortunately avoided dealing with the justice and human rights (and biblical) take on the topic, as well as the latent (and sometimes overt) racism that shrouds this administration's take on it and is rather milquetoast in his acquiesence to those who disagree, but still, it's a solid position as far as it goes.
I'm curious if his conservative commenters will be as harsh towards him as they are towards our side, when we basically hold the same position and make many of the same points.
I’ve pointed out my disagreements with Stan’s position, but to be fair, his position is only superficially similar to yours and he’s not nearly as unpleasant and disagreeable as you are.
We are ignoring - under cover of racist vitriol and histrionic fears - our greatest violent threats. Our families, our neighbors, our communities.
In 2017, fewer than 10 percent of homicide victims were killed by strangers, according to the F.B.I. And according to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, cases in which strangers abduct children are very rare; of more than 25,000 reports of missing children that the group received in 2018, only 77 were abductions by nonfamily members, said Erin Farrell, a center representative.
“Thousands more immigrant children were separated from their parents under the Trump administration than previously reported and whether they have been reunified is unknown, according to a report released Thursday by the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services.”
“Along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico, which sprawls across four states and nine House districts, a single seat is held by a Republican: Representative Will Hurd of Texas.
And Mr. Hurd, a former undercover C.I.A. officer who barely won re-election in Texas’ 23rd District, the largest of the nine, has emerged as perhaps the most persistent critic in his party of President Trump’s wall.”
79 comments:
What's this about?
It's about all the open borders types who live in gated communities or walled estates. It's about the folks who want to ban guns for everyone except their armed private security.
I don't know what Craig is talking about. I'm the person who wrote it. I don't live in a gated community, I live in an urban community next door to folks with mental illness and surrounded by folks from all different cultures.. who is in church relationships with immigrant folks.
So that first comment from Craig is clearly not directed towards me and seems a bit meaningless or out of context here.
And on the second comment, I do not own guns and I do not have an armed private security nor do I know anyone who does. So I have no idea what Craig is talking about, other than just trying to automatically going on the attack, Maybe.
What I'm talking about in my poem is those who would let fear dictate policy rather than reason, Justice or compassion. And when people let fear dictate policy, they often times will come up with irrational nonsensical Solutions like a border wall that all one has to do is go over or go around to beat.
I assumed you wrote this bit of doggerel, and am responding in a more tongue in cheek way to the larger issue.
Clearly anyone who would build a wall to stop a bird is insane, but that's not really the point.
What does seem to be the point is that Dan thinks that a wall won't be 100% effective, and he thinks that people seriously might believe that it will be 100% effective. I'll say that teeing off on an argument that isn't being made isn't necessarily effective.
Although, I think that your last actually made my jesting comments on topic. Clearly many people (including those who advocate for open borders) believe that ereact8ng walls will increase their security. Once can only assume that you would criticize the folx that live in gated communities, operate things like stadia, arenas, courthouses, government facilities, are all acting from unwarranted fear and that they should tear down the walls (or similar barriers) immediately.
If you can point out what you believe are peoples motivations for implementing policy, it only seems fair to point out those that hypocritically don't live by the same rules they'd impose on others.
FYI, you're right, the wall Israel build has proven very effective of stopping suicide bombers who espouse the "religion of peace", unfortunately it hasn't worked particularly well at stopping the regular barrages of mortars, artillery, and missiles, lobbed indiscriminately at unsuspecting and innocent civilians.
Again, my point is, it's rather obvious that a 15 foot wall can be beat by 20 ft ladder. A wall that goes 100 miles can be beat by walking 102 miles. The point is that experts say this is a waste of money and it's a huge waste of money.
Add to that how Trump has made this a racist issue trying to block the brown Invaders, as the new conservatives call them, just makes it evil instead of the welcoming of strangers that more moral and rational people would speak of. That's my point.
My point is rather obvious. The larger question then is why conservatives would defend the racist reasoning xenophobia in fear behind the current new conservative push for walls to keep out Invaders.
Yes Dan, we understand that you believe that there should be no impediment to crossing the borders. Please, provide the actual quotes where the “race” of those who cross our border in violation of our current law is explicitly stated.
Your point is obvious, it’s just not compelling and not consistent.
That you don't understand my position or understand how it's consistent doesn't mean that it's not compelling or consistent. It just means you don't understand.
Trump and his racist KKK type supporters have made it clear that this is about race from day one were accused Mexicans of sending rapists and killers. Again that you don't understand the racism involved doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Ask your friends of color to explain it to you.
Dan, you are right about something. You are correct that no matter what people do to enforce the law or protect themselves, there are other people who will go out of their way to surmount those protective measures.
You’re definitely right about that.
If your latest claim is factually accurate, you should have no trouble providing proof of your claim.
Or are you taking the She Guevara route and trying to say that facts don’t matter as long as you’re “morally right”?
I guess you’d have to admit that it’s possible to be objectively “morally right” first. Or just jump on the “by any means necessary” bandwagon.
But your still right that some folx (see my earlier “religion of peace” comment as an example.
Craig, what are you talkin about? None of your comments appear to have any relation to the topic of the post. None of your claims appear to be connected to reality.
So I'm not sure what it is you're even trying to say, just sounds like gobbledygook from someone who's not understanding a conversation. It's as if I'm talking about the best recipes for spaghetti and you're offering something like, "...On the other hand, the moonwalk was mostly filmed in Arizona in the 1930s and dainty rabbits are notorious for having bad dandruff issues."
You're not making sense.
What I'm saying is simple.
1. The experts tell us that a wall will be terribly expensive and ineffective.
2. Despite Trump's irrational and fear-mongering claims, we have no emergency On the Border to the South beyond the emergency of people seeking refuge and being blocked from receiving it.
3. There is no huge influx of terrorist or drugs coming across the border that a wall would stop. Trump's claims to the contrary are just false claims.
If you're not commenting on these points, you're off topic. Stop going off-topic or go away.
In spite of your hateful spin on it, you are right in your understanding standing of my point if you're saying that, if people are escaping danger and they come across a wall they WILL go over it. Because, of course they would. They would be stupid and immoral not to do so.
To hell with f****** walls that stop people seeking Refuge. That is just a basic reasonable moral position to take. Before you comment here any further can you clarify that you agree with that reality? That it is immoral to build a wall to stop people seeking Refuge from harm?
To reiterate, the wall does not stop terrorists, does not stop drug dealers... neither of which tend to use these open spaces for Crossing.
And they don't stop people seeking Refuge, either, although they probably do make it more difficult for the poor folks trying to do that. Certainly the xenophobic and fear-mongering demonization of refugees and immigrants does make it more difficult. That is what is stupid and evil because it is evil to stop people from seeking safety. Do you agree with that notion? I would say it's also evil to make it difficult for people seeking safety. Do you agree with that reality?
The question put to you, Craig, was do you agree that is evil to stop people or make it difficult for people to seek safety? It's a pretty simple question that any right-thinking moral person should be able to answer because the answer is clear and obvious. The balls in your Park.
Wow, that’s impressive. I answered that question in the comment you deleted.
The answer, again, is that it is wrong to “stop people from seeking safety”. Calling it “evil” (or my comments “hateful”), simply diminishes actual “evil” and “hateful”.
Of course, I’m not (nor is anyone else) suggesting that people be “stopped” from seeking safety. Further, no one is suggesting that “race” is the primary factor in this debate.
The problem you have is that you can’t prove the premises underlying your position, so you’ve decided that you just won’t and instead will attack me.
Here's one fact for you Craig: the number of unauthorized immigrants living in the United States was lower in 2016 than at any time since 2004, mainly to a large drop in the number of Mexicans, coming into the country. And it is still falling.
And yet, there is no wall.
Explain that, please. Using fact based evidence.
_____
Regarding race, was the poll tax or citizenship question entry to vote in the South explicitly racist? No. Was slavery explicitly racist? No. Marshall claims the slavery cannot even be found in the Constitution, so, to him - and perhaps yourself - the Constitution isn't explicitly racist.
But, as Chris Wallace hammered Sarah Huckabee Sanders on Fox: Sanders: “We know that roughly nearly 4,000 known or suspected terrorists come into our country illegally..." Wallace: "Wait wait, ’cause I know the statistic,” he said. “I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. Do you know where those 4,000 people come or where they’re captured? Airports... The state department says there hasn’t been any terrorists found coming across the southern border from Mexico."
_____
One more question: do you think the Republicans would have nominated a candidate with an illegal immigrant wife from a Latin American country?
"Let me tell you one thing,” President Trump said. “She has got it so documented, so she's going to have a little news conference over the next couple of weeks.” That was August 2016, when questions about Melania Trump's immigration history first cropped up. It has now been 28 months, and that news conference has not happened.
Re: "answered the question..."
I still have the comment on my email. What you literally said was,
"I agree that no wall will stop people from seeking safety. It might help regulate how people seek safety, but it won't stop people who seek safety."
In other words,you literally did not answer the question. Do you understand that reality?
It’s not that I didn’t answer, as much as my disagreeing with your premise.
In reality, I did answer the question by saying that it’s not about stopping, it’s about regulating.
But, I have to compliment you. You actually provided actual evidence to support your claim. You should do that more often.
And if numbers are going down, now lower than anytime since 2004, how is this not regulation?
Of course, Craig will ignore me. It hurts his pride to have to answer to someone who uses facts rather than merely naming their - somewhere - existence
Another fact. We do not have open borders. Haven't had since the 1880s. What we have, like most other countries, are controlled borders. What we will never have, which Marshall and Craig seem to want, are closed borders where there is a fence around everything.
BTW, even Bernie Sanders is against open borders. Get your facts right, Craig before you enter a mature conversation.
Dan,
This focus on the "wall" from both sides is simplistic and more of a diversion than anything. If the conversation is simply going to focus on one part of a multifaceted bigger picture, it's probably not worth having.
Unfortunately "walls" work. If these sorts of barriers didn't work, they wouldn't be everywhere. They aren't the be all and end all, but as one part of a larger strategy, they work.
If Trump was even reasonably aware, he'd stop talking about the wall and expand the discussion. If the left was serious about anything but blocking Trump, we would have seen something more comprehensive by now.
One additional problem that both sides have is focusing on one relatively small slice of the reasons why people cross the border in violation of US law. Some focus on only those who cross for bad reasons and try to project on the rest. Some focus on the "refugees" and try to project their feelings across a broad spectrum.
In all honesty, this problem has been kicked down the road by multiple administrations and congresses. As long as the debate is more about bashing Trump than about making progress, it's simply a colossal waste of time.
Jesus god, Craig, facts don’t disappear just because you ignore them.
Chris Wallace: "Wait wait, ’cause I know the statistic,” he said. “I didn’t know if you were going to use it, but I studied up on this. Do you know where those 4,000 people come or where they’re captured? Airports.
Craig...
It’s not that I didn’t answer, as much as my disagreeing with your premise.
No, it's LITERALLY that you didn't answer the question that was asked. It was an easy question that any moral rational person should be able to answer. It establishes a basic human rights and justice principle as a starting point for this conversation.
Last time to answer directly and clearly, Craig...
1. Do you agree that you literally did not answer the question that was asked of you?
2. Do you agree that it is wrong/evil/immoral/atrocious to try to prevent people from seeking refuge from harm?
Simple questions. Answer both with the only right answer there is or I'll remove your comments as they are not being offered in good faith.
As to the "focus on the wall," the ONLY reason that Dems are focusing on the wall is because the idiot and perverted liar in charge keeps trying to build it and keeps repeating the lies that it's there to prevent terrorists and invading brown people from entering, playing upon racist tropes that his racist supporters (the KKK types) rally around and which his other followers keep defending, even though it is a racist trope he's offering.
By all means, END the attempts to "build a wall" and deal with the problems of WHY are there refugees and immigrants at the borders... the dire straits of people seeking refuge and a better life. Make entry easier, not more difficult, for people seeking refuge. If you want to fund something to make a difference, FULLY FUND the "legal" ports of entry so that there are plenty of people to process refugee claims in a prompt and timely manner, for instance. Work out the citizenship plans for DACA folk. Those are actually helpful actions that IF Trump supporters focused on THOSE sorts of things, THEN you wouldn't be participating in Trump's and the KKK types of folk's dog whistles and racist actions/plans.
A wall "works" to keep people out when one builds a secure wall all the way around whatever it is you're trying to protect.
A wall fails - and is wrong and evil - when it prevents people from seeking safety.
A wall fails if all you have to do is climb over it.
We are a nation of doors, not walls. Let us live up to our better ideals, not cave to racist fears.
Some focus on only those who cross for bad reasons and try to project on the rest. Some focus on the "refugees" and try to project their feelings across a broad spectrum.
One other requirement, Craig: Admit that this is a bullshit claim that you CAN NOT support with data (the suggestion that the refugee problem is only a "small slice" of the explanation of why people are crossing our borders) or provide data that shows it's factually not a large problem for many of those coming from Latin America (and other places, as well, but Trump's been focusing mainly on the brown people from the South).
From a news story about the October so-called caravan of refugees last year...
"In that case, about 1,500 people started their journey in southern Mexico, but the caravan dwindled down to a few hundred by the time they reached the Mexican border with California in April. And according to federal data, most of them did exactly what they said they were going to do: presented themselves at U.S. ports of entry and applied for asylum.
According to data and congressional testimony from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services officials, 401 members of that caravan requested asylum at ports of entry, a legal right enshrined in U.S. law and international conventions the U.S. is party to.
Federal officials interviewed those asylum-seekers and found 374 of them, or 93 percent, passed the first test on the path toward asylum, where they must demonstrate that they have a “credible fear” of returning to their home country. That’s higher than the 76 percent approval rate that all asylum-seekers received in fiscal year 2018, according to Citizenship and Immigration Services data."
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/10/23/migrant-caravan-how-many-sought-asylum/1741030002/
More facts and data for you to consider, Craig, before making other false or dubious claims...
https://www.wola.org/analysis/fact-sheet-united-states-immigration-central-american-asylum-seekers/
By Dan's own admission here, those who lawfully sought asylum were taken care of. Don't see the issue, or how this admission mitigates anything put forth about whole border wall issue.
What's more, regardless of how many made it passed the first phase of the process, that's no guarantee that they'll be granted asylum. For those who have a true and legitimate reason, I hope they do. But if denied, it doesn't mean that legitimate claims were no matter how Dan insists that all claims must be believed. It simply doesn't work that way, nor is there any intelligent reason he can give that it should be so.
The right answer (if you're a reasonable and moral person) to the question: Is it wrong to prevent people from seeking safety? is always Yes, it is wrong. Of course it is!
If you think your answer is a valid moral option, then that's on you, but I'm not inclined to let such nonsense stand here.
if someone comes here advocating lynching Mexicans or beating women, I'd delete those comments, too, most likely. This is not a forum for advocating evil or wrong and I think most reasonable and moral adults can admit that of course it is wrong to block people from seeking refuge.
Probably, what you THINK you're being clever and doing is addressing some other question (does building a wall make it difficult for people to seek refuge? or something like that...). But I was ONLY asking the very simple, very straightforward question of IS it wrong to block someone from seeking refuge from harm? There IS only one moral and just and reasonable answer to that question.
The reason why I'm trying to get you to agree to basic reason is because I am a man of principles and operate from a place of principles. Thus, it is important to establish some reasonable and just and moral principles before considering policy.
And again, that's just basic common sense, nothing spectacular in that.
But the Trump-conservatives have had their minds so poisoned by the lies of "fake news" and "THEY are the enemy of the state" that you all can't even agree on some very basic moral starting points/principles.
May your eyes be opened.
Marshall, you are speaking from a place of ignorance. Go educate yourself. Volunteer with refugee organizations for a year... or even six months. Visit immigrants in their homes and have them in your homes for some months. Do some reading outside of your little white echo chambers.
Then come back here, let me know you've done that, and we can talk about policy.
Until then, a person speaking from a place of ignorance has nothing of significance to offer.
Craig, I told you I'd give you ONE chance to answer a reasonable question with only one obvious moral and rational answer:
"DO YOU AGREE THAT IT IS WRONG TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM SEEKING REFUGE FROM HARM?"
JUST that question. I wasn't asking you about any greater political points, just one clear obvious question with one clear obvious moral and rational answer, trying to establish a principle to begin looking at the greater political points.
Now, I'll be gracious and give you one more chance, but only one.
IF you want to try again to answer THAT question and only that question, you can. You can do this by beginning FIRST with an apology for failing to understand (or whatever it is that caused you to dodge and evade a clear direct answer), and then giving the only moral and rational answer available to this question.
It should look something like this...
Dan, I am sorry for failing to get the point that you were asking about the principle involved... Yes, of course, it is wrong to prevent people from seeking refuge. As far as that goes, yes, I agree, such an action, if and when it happens, is wrong, clearly wrong. There is no other moral or rational answer to that question.
Ball's in your court.
I truly don't think either of you two gentlemen are understanding the ethical and moral questions at play here, or the ramifications of supporting (even in your milquetoast manner) a man who fans the flames of racism, but if you can demonstrate that you now understand the principle I'm asking about, you may give it a try.
I’ve answerd that question multiple times, even given you the “right” answer, you continuing to lie about that demonstrable fact only undermines your morality argument.
You first asked the first of many versions of your question at 6:00 PM on January 7th, since then you've adjusted and modified it multiple times.
My first answer was deleted by you.
My second answer was at 12:50 on January 7, "The answer, again, is that it is wrong to “stop people from seeking safety”."
Again, I gave the "right" answer on January 8 at 12:47 PM, "I agree that to preempt people from “seeking” a safer situation is wrong."
I'm sorry that the reality is that I gave you the "right" answer 2 days ago and that you're simply choosing to lie about that and add requirements after the fact to justify your lies.
You've lost any credibility you might have had regarding either morality or reality since you've chosen to go down this road.
The ball is in your court. You can acknowledge the reality that I gave you the "right" answer to your question, and that you chose to delete my comments anyway, or you can ignore reality and continue to lie. Your call.
"Volunteer with refugee organizations for a year... or even six months"
I've spent more than a decade working extensively with refugees, I think I've done enough to clear this hurdle.
"Visit immigrants in their homes and have them in your homes for some months."
Again, more than a decade of spending time with refugees both in and out of their homes.
"Do some reading outside of your little white echo chambers."
Assuming that I don't is quite a leap. I'd love to see you prove that I haven't.
"Then come back here, let me know you've done that, and we can talk about policy."
Again, the assumption that one is unqualified to talk policy unless they've jumped through your hoops is quite the expression of hubris. I guess that fact that I've done more than you've asked, including working to ameliorate conditions on countries that people immigrate from, just insn't quite enough for you.
"Until then, a person speaking from a place of ignorance has nothing of significance to offer."
Again, since I've exceeded your arbitrary requirements, I guess I'm not speaking from ignorance, apparently that doesn't make a bit of difference.
Craig, if you look at my words I wrote, you'll notice that comment was directed specifically to Marshall.
So, even though I’ve met/exceeded your arbitrary criteria, you’re still going to tell me I’m uninformed or speaking from ignorance.
Nice, excuse to exclude.
This conversation raises the questions,”Are all wall immoral, or just this one particular wall?” “If walls are immoral, what other inanimate objects are immoral?”, “Is there a worldview that explains the immorality of inanimate objects?”
I agree with Craig, Dan. Sending Marshall out to try to love people may well not change him at all. Look at Craig. He thinks being a Christian is doing what he has to do to stay in the good book. He has to love people because that's what's required. He's totally missed the call to actually love people and help those people not with what he needs, but with what they need. His Christ is a lawgiver, not a liberator of souls from prison. His faith is a list he has derived from a book, not a love of other lives. He, still, is in prison, and making shiny new license plates.
And before you say I'm guessing, you know it's true. You've seen the evidence from his consistent position of excusing brutality in the name of doing what is "right" - all these many years.
Craig, I'll review your claims that you have actually answered the question that I asked directly as soon as I can look at it in more detail. I'll allow your comments to stand for now. But to your last comment, question about what walls are bad and what walls are not bad? Or, are all walls bad? This is precisely why I was pushing you to answer directly the question that I was asking... To help establish the principle. The principle - which you appear to agree with - is that taking actions to block or stop people from seeking safety is wrong.
Given that principle, then a wall that has four sides that is designed to keep a lion in the zoo, for instance, is that wrong? No, because that wall is keeping people safe, keeping people out of a dangerous location.
(Now we could get into a debate about whether zoos are moral options, but that's a different debate.)
Walls around our house that keep people from breaking in and taking our stuff on our own property, that's legitimate. It's our property. Nothing immoral in that.
(And even in that case, however, if a person was running from violence and they broke in through my walls to seek safety, that I would say is not wrong. I would not prosecute them for seeking safety because seeking safety is a legitimate Moral cause. A rational moral cause.)
So, walls built to keep private property private are not in and of themselves are not irrational or immoral.
But walls that prevent one group of people in the public from going to another public place while they are seeking safety, those walls would be immoral and irrational because it's wrong to stop people from seeking safety as we have already agreed.
In other words, not all walls are the same.
What’s to review, I gave you two direct quotes that demonstrate that not only did I answer your question, but I gave the answer that you demand is the “right” answer. I even gave you the dates and times of the comments.
As to your last. You seem to be suggesting that some walls are ok, and some aren’t. I leave of you not addressing the morality issue.
You seem to suggest that “private” walls are “moral” while public walls aren’t. Or perhaps whales designed to keep people safe are moral while walls designed to “prevent safety” are immoral.
Again, ignoring the fact that you’re assigning morality to inanimate objects, let’s deal in reality.
Let’s look at public spaces that are surrounded by walls or physical barriers. Airports, stadia, government buildings, parks, just to name a few. These places are surrounded by barriers to regulate access to people who are supposed to have access. By definition they keep the majority of people out. Are you suggesting that it’s immoral to regulate who has access to a public space?
You also seem to be suggesting that the territory allotted to a sovereign nation is “public” in the sense that non citizens should have the same unfettered access to that space as citizens have. Yet, don’t we (as US citizens) have some degree of ownership of our country?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you seem to be advocating complete unfettered freedom of movement across national borders. (Or complete unfettered access for anyone to cross the US border) This unfettered, unregulated access seems to be quite a radical position to take.
What's to review is that I went through all your posts in my email and I couldn't find your words you cite above.
But I'll give it to you. You are CLEARLY agreeing with me, then, on the principle,
It is WRONG to block people from seeking safety/refuge from harm.
You and I agree. Marshall probably disagrees.
If Marshall disagrees, will you tell him he's wrong (of course he's wrong!)?
Yes, our public land (i.e., the land in the US that is not privately held, the literally public land) is not private.
I'm saying that it is a human liberty to be self-determining and part of being self determining is the freedom to move from Here to There if Here is not safe and There is, in your estimation. Because OF COURSE it is.
You appear to be fine with setting some pretty stringent limitations on that based upon the reality that you were fortunate enough to be born in a nation that is relatively wealthy and safe. IF you had been born in a nation that wasn't, perhaps you'd feel differently.
I am not for complete unfettered freedom of movement, but I'm MUCH closer to something like that than you are. I'd say the restrictions of moving from Place A to Place B ought to be more about ecological limits (i.e., if a desert area with X amount of water can only handle Z amount of people, then it is reasonable to strive to restrict population to somewhere safely under Z).
But given a safe and prosperous Nation A (that can easily accommodate a larger population) and a Dangerous and Struggling Nation B, then of course, a person should have the liberty to move from Nation A to B. Or, at the very least, those from the Unsafe B should have the option/liberty to move to one of several Nation A's that are safe and prosperous enough to handle it.
Do you oppose such an idea, that people should NOT be able to freely move from one unsafe nation to a safe nation?
If your children were living in the Unsafe Nation, would you STILL oppose such a basic human liberty.
This is a no-brainer to me.
That’s why I gave you the date and times from each one. They’re right out in public for anyone to see at my blog. Maybe you should have read the entirety of the comments before you deleted them.
But thank you for “giving” me the reality that my comments from days ago were “right” and had you lived up to your original claim, you wouldn’t have deleted my comments.
The public land in the US is owned by the federal government, “we the people”, as it were. It’s owned jointly by all US citizens, as such it’s equivalent to private property as it relates to citizens of other countries. All countries have the right to deal with their borders as they wish.
You seem to be confusing this freedom of movement you champion with a desire to regulate and exercise control over border access.
You keep saying that the US has the ability to absorb virtually unlimited amounts of people, if you listen to the progressives who control our local government (and extra-governmental entities) our metropolitan area can’t adequately house the people already here, yet you argue that “self determination” says we should do just that? Where is all this housing going to come from? Our unemployment rate is pretty low, where will these folx find jobs? How will they pay rent?
Maybe it’s not such a crisis in small cities, I’m sure y’all could accommodate a doubling or tripling of your population with no shortage of jobs or affordable housing stock, ours can’t accommodate what we have.
We, as a country need to regulate, manage, and control immigration.
"It is WRONG to block people from seeking safety/refuge from harm.
You and I agree. Marshall probably disagrees."
You have no basis for presuming such a thing, except your hate and dishonesty toward someone who confronts you with truth, facts and logic you're incapable of countering. In other words, me. You simply need to believe the worst about me you can conjure in order to avoid having to deal with the truth, facts and logic I present so easily. You kid no one except your sock puppet. If you believed it yourself, you wouldn't delete my comments.
The fact is that I do indeed agree with that principle. I totally disagree with your blatantly dishonest defense of it...or more precisely, your blatant dishonesty in attacking those who aren't 100% in agreement with you. As I said earlier before you deleted me, it is disagreement to which you refer as "a place of ignorance". Childish and unsupportable.
So again I state that I've known many immigrants in my life, both legal and otherwise, beginning with my own grandparents. I grew up around immigrants, a Polish couple across the street from the time I was five years old, as well as a friend's German father. A close high school friend was the son of a Mexican immigrant...his mother...while his father was from Japan. Another friend claimed his folks were from Spain, but we all believed he just didn't want to be known as Mexican...we didn't much care either way. I've worked with many Mexican immigrants over the years, some of whom were undoubtedly here illegally, including one woman who bragged about it.
In the refugee department, as I said I knew an old Jewish guy who had his concentration camp number on his arm. I also knew a Jewish couple who fled Europe to escape the nazis. Later, I worked with a guy who swam several miles to escape Nicolae Ceausescu's dictatorship.
These are just some of my personal experiences with immigrants and refugees. So what exactly do you think you know that I don't? What about your anecdotal history and experience makes you more expert in this issue than me exactly?
More importantly, how can you prove that you, or the "expert" immigration lawyers who inform you, are capable of determining the truthfulness of those claiming they are fleeing danger? I hold that you very likely do very little in that regard, preferring to simply take their word for it. Indeed, if they entered the country as they should, there'd be no need for you. If they entered as they should, were rejected and then ended up with you, all the more reason to suspect.
At the same time, we employ people who process such claims, who are experienced in making such determinations. Are they liars? incompetent? racist? and how the hell would YOU know?
None of which, either your anecdotal evidence or mine, has any bearing on the righteousness and justice of a wall on our southern border.
Where does Craig live? What does Craig know about the Southern border? When does Craig ever have actual facts in hand? Perhaps Craig should listen and believe the people who live by border. Their facts shoot Craig’s bullshit full of holes. It’s easy.
Wall of contention
MOST TEXANS ALONG THE BORDER DON’T WANT TRUMP’S WALL, AND MANY DOUBT IT WILL BE BUILT
Many Texans who live along the U.S.-Mexico border support President Donald Trump, but their affection for the New York real estate mogul-turned-politician comes with a caveat:
They do not want a wall.
The Star-Telegram recently visited a 325-mile stretch of the Lone Star State’s boundary with Mexico to gauge attitudes toward the proposed wall. The trip included stops in Presidio, Big Bend National Park, Del Rio and Eagle Pass in late April, and visits with a farmer, a rancher, a wildlife biologist, a sheriff and people from many other walks of life.
The reasons for their opposition to the wall are as varied as the communities that sit along the Rio Grande. Some are concerned about losing private land to make room for the structure. Others warned that building a continuous wall could cause massive flooding. Still others spoke against the potential impact on wildlife, and the state’s natural landscape.
And many border residents said they had serious doubts that such a wall would succeed in reducing illegal immigration or drug smuggling — the primary justifications often cited by supporters.
“Trump has done some good things with immigration, but he’s 100 percent wrong about the wall,” said Dob Cunningham, 83, a lifelong rancher and retired Border Patrol agent who owns hundreds of acres abutting the border in Quemado, north of Eagle Pass. “I haven’t found anybody — and I know people from Nogales [Arizona] to Brownsville — who wants that wall.”
Statewide, 61 percent of Texans oppose building a wall, while 35 percent support it and 4 percent don’t know or declined to answer, according to a poll conducted in April by Texas Lyceum, a nonprofit leadership organization.
Residents of the Lone Star State who live, work and play along the international boundary with Mexico say they are happy that the Trump administration’s plans to quickly build the wall have encountered complications in Washington.
A dispute over whether to fund the wall nearly led to a federal government shutdown in March, until the president agreed to delay the plan possibly until September. On Tuesday, Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney unveiled a 2018 budget that includes $2.6 billion for stepped-up border security, including $1.6 billion for a wall.
Although 10 of 15 Texas counties that touch the border went for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the November presidential election, many of the people interviewed along the international boundary in late April described themselves as conservatives, and several said they voted for Trump.
So their beef isn’t with the president himself.
It’s with the proposed wall.
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article152402734.html
“Two Texas lawmakers — one Republican, one Democrat — warned Homeland Security Department officials Thursday that it won’t be easy to build President Donald Trump’s border wall in the Lone Star State if the private landowners have anything to say about it.
GOP Rep. John Carter, chairman of the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee, and Democratic Rep. Henry Cuellar, whose district sits on the border with Mexico, laid out a host of reasons why landowners on the border could stifle — temporarily, at least — DHS efforts to make Trump’s hallmark campaign promise a reality.
“I’ve been warning people since day one,” Carter said at a subcommittee hearing on Trump’s fiscal 2019 budget request for Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “You’re gonna need a lot of lawyers.”
https://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/appropriators-dont-mess-texas-landowners-border-wall
“TORNILLO — Pecan farmer Shannon Ivey is all for increasing border security.
People who crossed the border illegally used to regularly cut through the fourth-generation Texan’s property in this small farming town about 40 miles from El Paso.
“Prior to the fence going up, we’d have groups of 30 to 40 people coming through all at once,” said Ivey, referring to the 18-foot barrier that was built on his property during the George W. Bush administration.
“But I think a combination of a fence, electronic surveillance, and boots on the ground. I think a nation has a right to secure its borders, so I’m a believer in that,” Ivey said.
But he is not convinced the border needs a new barrier.
“You don’t need a great wall of China. You don’t need a big, concrete wall,” he said.
Others on the border question the need for a wall, as well. Polls show a majority of border residents oppose the idea, and support has been waning nationally as well.”
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2017/05/15/along-texas-mexico-border-trumps-wall-faces-barrier-public-opposition
“President Trump gave a prime-time address Tuesday evening to make his case that Congress should provide funding for a wall on the US-Mexico border. Trump’s Oval Office address comes on the 18th day of the government shutdown, which has incapacitated federal agencies and departments from the IRS to the National Parks to the food stamp program.
Trump will follow up his Oval Office address by visiting the US-Mexico border town of McAllen, Texas, on Thursday. There, Trump will have to confront one of the biggest challenges in building support for his wall: The people who live on the border say there is no national emergency and they don’t want a wall.
McAllen’s Mayor Jim Darling deals with the daily realities of immigration on one of Texas’s busiest border-crossing areas. Darling told the Texas Standard that while the media is hyper-focused on undocumented immigrants, the people he sees at respite centers are coming into the country legally to seek asylum.
Darling could hardly disagree more with President Trump over the idea that his town is experiencing a crisis or “national emergency.” In fact, last year Darling called McAllen “the overall safest city in Texas and one of the safest in the US.”
Moreover Mayor Darling points out that nearly 40 percent of the city’s sales tax revenue — the second highest in the state — comes from shoppers from Mexico, who cross the border peaceably and contribute to the local economy.
Mayor Darling is in favor of border security and says Washington should get behind “immigration reform,” but he argues that Trump’s border wall is useless since the Rio Grande acts as a natural border. “We know where our border is and we have one,” Darling says. “A wall is really not the effective way to protect our border.”
https://truthout.org/articles/mayor-of-texas-border-town-trumps-wall-is-pointless/
“Moreover Mayor Darling points out that nearly 40 percent of the city’s sales tax revenue — the second highest in the state — comes from shoppers from Mexico, who cross the border peaceably and contribute to the local economy.
Mayor Darling is in favor of border security and says Washington should get behind “immigration reform,” but he argues that Trump’s border wall is useless since the Rio Grande acts as a natural border. “We know where our border is and we have one,” Darling says. “A wall is really not the effective way to protect our border.”
On the Border, Little Enthusiasm for a Wall: ‘We Have Other Problems That Need Fixing’
“A cattle rancher in southern Arizona said he had traveled to Mexico a day earlier, and he saw no emergency. The lines were long — officials have shut down the number of ways people there can cross — but there were no signs of conflict or people pressing to get in.
“There is no border problem, except for ones we are causing,” said the rancher, who said he had not had any problems with illegal border crossers on his property and who asked not to be identified out of fear of retribution from strident supporters of Mr. Trump’s planned border wall. “There’s no need for a bigger wall. There is not a border crisis down here.
Some of the worsening problems, some city officials have said, are a result of the federal government’s own management of the border. In El Paso and other cities in California and Arizona, the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has in recent weeks released thousands of immigrants unannounced onto city streets, forcing city officials and migrant shelter operators to scramble to accommodate them.
“They were just being dropped off with nothing — no money, nothing,” said Kevin Malone, one of the founders of the San Diego Rapid Response Network, which has been dealing more frequently with unannounced releases. “They’re setting people up for failure every step along the way. This is a contrived emergency. They don’t have to be doing it like this.”
From 2014 to 2017, local municipalities in South Texas had to spend $873,000 on immigrant relief efforts, expanding staffing, securing migrant assistance centers and maintaining restrooms, generators and sleeping quarters. “Then we get blasted for being sanctuary cities — get real,” said Jim Darling, the mayor of McAllen. “It’s not our fault. The feds are the ones dropping them off. What are we supposed to do?”
One of them was Cyndie Rathburn, the mayor of the Texas town of Rancho Viejo, home to what she described as a large population of conservative Trump supporters. “This is not a national security crisis,” she said as she purchased a bag of fruit from a local vendor. “President Trump has a flair for hyperbole and rhetoric.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/border-wall-crisis-mexico-usa.amp.html
Marshall, like Trump, just wants to economically hurt Americans.
“Immigrant workers are actually having a net positive effect on the economy. Because of a native–born population that is both declining in numbers and increasing in age, the U.S. needs its immigrant workers. The portion of foreign–born now accounts for about 16 percent of the labor force, with immigrants and their children accounting for the vast majority of current and future workforce growth in the United States, If the number of immigrants to the United States was reduced—by deportation or barriers to further immigration—so that foreign–born represented only about 10 percent of the population, the number of working–age Americans in the coming decades would remain essentially static at the current number of 175 million. If, however, the proportion of foreign–born remains at the current level, then the number of working–age residents in the U.S. will increase by about 30 million in the next 50 years. We need these workers not just to fill jobs but to increase productivity, which has diminished sharply. We also need them because the number of the elderly drawing expensive benefits like Medicare and Social Security—the costs of which are paid for by workers’ taxes—is growing substantially. Nearly 44 million people aged 65 or older currently draw Social Security; in 2050 that number is estimated to rise to 86 million. Even undocumented workers support Social Security: Since at least 1.8 million were working with fake Social Security cards in 2010 in order to get employment but were mostly unable to draw the benefits, they contributed $13 billion that year into the retirement trust fund, and took out only $1 billion.”
This is a long read and covers many aspects of building a wall. All of which devestate Marshall and Craig’s inclinations toward brutality.
https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-wall-the-real-costs-of-a-barrier-between-the-united-states-and-mexico/
Your honor, it goes to patterns of behavior.
Here we see Marshall’s corrupt intentions to lie to cover up an inability to understand the lives of Americans. Which he revealed in a crying jag at Craig’s:
“And by the way, given that public sector employees are typically paid better for comparable jobs in the private sector, why don't they have an emergency fund ready to handle shutdowns, given they are not uncommon regardless of who sits in the big chair? There's been a couple dozen shut downs over the last forty/fifty years. Do they really believe they won't happen again? They all get back pay anyway, which could go back into their emergency fund.”
Trump said Mexico would pay for it. Marshall swallowed his lies and spits them back out. Marshall of all people should understand what working people go through. Oh, wait, he’s a Republican: killing his own interests in the name of bigotry is the party platform.
Does Marshall really mean to suggest that the people who go through his pockets at the airport are that comfortable that a month’s worth of bills and rent/mortgage are just a snap of the wrist? Maybe they’re all childless.
Or Marshall is an uncaring brutalizing son of a bitch. There’s a fact.
Michelle Mallon vs The Brookings Institution? Please! A paid Liar vs a non political bipartisan research organization with over 300 experts?
Rational intelligence just never seems to say what Marshall wants to hear.
Shallow mind: corrupt heart.
Marshall, perhaps you thought I was joking or speaking out of hand when I said go get familiar with the people and the subject you are speaking about here. I was/am serious.
You have no first hand knowledge from the point of view of immigrants/refugees. Go. Get that. Learn at the feet of some starving, desperate poor Guatemalans or Mexicans. Listen to what they are saying. Do that for six months.
When you've done that, you can come back and offer opinions on this topic. Not before.
If I wanted ignorant opinion pieces that almost certainly start from a place of racism, I'd listen to this president or read Breitbart.
The President is considering using national disaster relief funds to build the Wall.
Thousands of Americans died in Puerto Rico without the administration’s acknowledgement because disaster relief went missing. And STILL, Puerto Rico is broken.
And what does Craig care about? Whether his comments are deleted or restored.
Shallow mind: cheap heart: lost soul.
[Dan’s in a ticklish position at this point. He was adamant that I answer his questions or he’d delete all my comments. He deleted the comments with his questions answered, and claimed I hadn’t answered. Fortunately I provided demonstrable evidence that he was wrong. I suspect he’s searching for a way to save face, instead of re-posting the comments he deleted.]
Trump was briefed in south Texas today that tunnels are being dug beneath the areas of the border where there is a wall.
Craig and Marshall cannot even understand seven lines about a Red Raven.
Marshall manufactures more lies.
Meth, cocaine, heroin: most gets smuggled through ports of entry. A wall won't stop it. Data from Trumps own administration repeatedly show that smuggled drugs, especially more potent ones like heroin and cocaine, are increasingly seized at legal ports of entry, which are not impacted by a wall.
From the Brookings Institution article:
"Other smuggling methods increasingly include the use of drones and catapults as well as joint drainage systems between border towns that have wide tunnels or tubes through which people can crawl and drugs can be pulled. But even if the land border were to become much more secure, that would only intensify the trend toward smuggling goods as well as people via boats that sail far to the north, where they land on the California coast.
Another thing to consider is that a barrier in the form of a wall is increasingly irrelevant to the drug trade as it is now practiced because most of the drugs smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico no longer arrive on the backs of those who cross illegally. Instead, according to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, most of the smuggled marijuana as well as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamines comes through the 52 legal ports of entry on the border. These ports have to process literally millions of people, cars, trucks, and trains every week. Traffickers hide their illicit cargo in secret, state–of–the art compartments designed for cars, or under legal goods in trailer trucks. And they have learned many techniques for fooling the border patrol. Mike, a grizzled U.S. border official whom I interviewed in El Paso in 2013, shrugged: “The narcos sometimes tip us off, letting us find a car full of drugs while they send six other cars elsewhere. Such write–offs are part of their business expense. Other times the tipoffs are false. We search cars and cars, snarl up the traffic for hours on, and find nothing.”
"A closer look at the country results shows that, despite President Trump winning the state of Texas in the 2016 election, there is a concentration of support for former secretary of State Hillary Clinton that's almost exclusive to the border. In fact, per a Politico breakdown of election results, of the 14 border counties in Texas, 10 went blue for Clinton. 399,607 border residents in Texas voted for Clinton in 2016, and just 162,896 voted for Trump.
A common retort to the region's apparent disdain for the wall is that the border is populated by immigrants, particularly immigrants from Spanish-speaking countries, thus the push back against President Trump, who ran as an immigration hardliner. But even that claim is dubious: a study of Texas border families found that citizens living near the border are actually predominantly American-born citizens.
"Surprisingly, even though Texas' border counties are the gateway to Mexico, fewer than one of every five children living in those counties lives in an immigrant family," the study published by the Center for Public Policy Priorities found. Moreover, the support for the wall from Texas as a whole is meager. President Trump won the state handily, but just 43 percent of Texans support his border wall, while 53 percent oppose it, according to a Quinnipiac poll published on April 19.
Similar trends can be seen in New Mexico, Arizona and California, the three other states bordering Mexico.
Marshall denies racism on immigration. Ignorant of his own party’s immoral ideology.
Conservative Immigration Scholar: Black and Hispanic Immigrants Are Dumber Than European Immigrants
Jason Richwine, who coauthored a Heritage Foundation study on immigration, didn’t just argue that certain minorities are dumber in his scholarship—he also said it at a public panel.
So Dan,
Why did you delete my comment correcting feo's lie about Jason Richwine?
Because a lie from white supremacy cannot correct the truth. You’re lost in lies.
Because you haven’t done your penance by spending 6 months with starving Mexicans and Guatemalans.
If you’d like, I have a friend who can arrange for you to spend some quality time in Guatemala.
Maybe you should start copy/pasting your comments for posterity.
Craig, you bore me, brother.
Marshall and Craig are liars with zero credibility. I haven’t read a fact about actual issues stated by either of them in over a year.
“Jan. 4, 2018
WASHINGTON — Four months after President Trump rescinded an Obama-era program shielding young unauthorized immigrants, the White House and Senate negotiators are inching toward a deal that would restore the protections, while also beefing up border security.
“Obama couldn’t do it. Bush couldn’t do it. I think you can do it,” Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, told Mr. Trump at the meeting. “There’s a bill to be had. If you want it bad enough, we’ll get it and it will be good for the country. Everybody has got to give a little bit.”
“I think we’re narrowing the differences,” Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the No. 2 Republican in the Senate, said Thursday, after a group of Republican senators met at the White House with Mr. Trump. The president has invited members of both parties to meet with him to discuss immigration next week.
Overhauling the nation’s immigration laws is a goal that has eluded presidents since President Ronald Reagan signed a sweeping measure in 1986 that offered amnesty to nearly three million illegal immigrants. Mr. Cornyn and other Republicans say they are optimistic that Mr. Trump can break the logjam.
The president also used Thursday’s meeting to reiterate his demand for a border wall.
After Thursday’s meeting, Senator James Lankford, Republican of Oklahoma, said Mr. Trump was not insisting on a massive physical wall.
“People want to paint his definition, that it’s some 2,000-mile-long, 30-foot-high wall of concrete,” Mr. Lankford said. “That’s not what he means, and that’s not what he’s trying to say.”
The senator continued: “There’s going to be border fencing in some areas, there’s going to be vehicular barricades, there’s going to be technology, greater manpower in some areas. Different parts, whether they’re mountainous or whether they’re open deserts, need different solutions.”
Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who also attended Thursday’s meeting, said Wednesday that he expected a “very good compromise” to be ready by the end of the month, and that it would have a mix of border security provisions.
“I hate to use the word ‘wall,’ because that implies you might want a steel wall for 2,000 miles,” said Mr. Grassley, who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over immigration. “We want border security. Sometimes it’s wall, sometimes it’s more border personnel. I t might be electronic surveillance, drones. The idea is that people come to this country with papers.”
When anyone says, national crisis, they are clearly lying.
“Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) met privately with Trump at the White House in January, and the two had what was described as the "Cheeseburger Summit." After the meeting, the Democratic leader seemed optimistic that he and the president had come up with the "framework" for an immigration deal.
As we discussed at the time, the basic contours of the deal were straightforward: Schumer was willing to accept funding for a border wall in exchange for DACA protections for Dreamers.
After Trump negotiated the terms, the White House balked: Chief of Staff John Kelly called Schumer soon after to explain the plan wasn't far enough to the right for Republicans. Trump himself declared that he'd need far more in any deal, including significant cuts to legal immigration.”
Why am I deleting your comments, Marshall? I've already answered that. You are speaking from a place of absolute ignorance. Go, spend some time with some refugees. Then come back and we'll talk.
But beyond that, look, we're 60 comments into this "conversation" and the two of you are not saying anything beyond silly defenses of what is not defensible. I'm entirely sure that both of you all are blind to the racism fanned by this administration and the racist reasoning for these false claims about a "national emergency" to stop the "invasion" of "bad" brown people from the South.
But that you don't see it/understand it/recognize it for what it is doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
So, go spend time with refugees, Marshall. Maybe it will help you. Although it does not appear to have helped Craig, but it can't hurt.
Dan, is it painful to have your sense of humor removed?
I guess you think ridicule over proof is an effective strategy.
In all seriousness, I suspect I bore you because I don’t take you as seriously as you think you should be taken.
Craig thinks blocking truth is an honest strategy.
Racists see people by color first and primarily.
Refugee from violence requiring humanitarian assistance? No. Brown baby.
Border Agent? No. Brown man.
Border agents share opposing motivations regarding the Wall. Most Texas agents, and politicians, (of varying colors) downplay the Wall and ask for 10,000 more agents. Why? Jobs and economy.
Other agents (of varying colors) want the Wall. Why? Relieves them of driving hundreds of miles every day, back and forth, getting out in all kinds of weather. Instead, sit and monitor instruments.
Shallow mind, Marshall, and corrupt heart.
Most drugs are smuggled into the United States onboard fishing boats, trains, tractor-trailers and ordinary cars that come into the country at legal ports of entry, according to former cartel members who've testified in the trial of notorious cartel leader Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman.
Some cartel members have testified about using underground tunnels. But none have said they've transported drugs into the United States at unwalled sections of the border.
Interestingly, Stan at the Birds of the Air blog posted a position today that is actually very similar to mine and the progressive (and I believe, moral and rational) position. He unfortunately avoided dealing with the justice and human rights (and biblical) take on the topic, as well as the latent (and sometimes overt) racism that shrouds this administration's take on it and is rather milquetoast in his acquiesence to those who disagree, but still, it's a solid position as far as it goes.
I'm curious if his conservative commenters will be as harsh towards him as they are towards our side, when we basically hold the same position and make many of the same points.
I’ve pointed out my disagreements with Stan’s position, but to be fair, his position is only superficially similar to yours and he’s not nearly as unpleasant and disagreeable as you are.
Which means that Stan is not nearly as morally developed in his thinking as Dan, or as comprehensive.
And Craig needs to get out more.
We are ignoring - under cover of racist vitriol and histrionic fears - our greatest violent threats. Our families, our neighbors, our communities.
In 2017, fewer than 10 percent of homicide victims were killed by strangers, according to the F.B.I. And according to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, cases in which strangers abduct children are very rare; of more than 25,000 reports of missing children that the group received in 2018, only 77 were abductions by nonfamily members, said Erin Farrell, a center representative.
“Thousands more immigrant children were separated from their parents under the Trump administration than previously reported and whether they have been reunified is unknown, according to a report released Thursday by the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services.”
“Along the 2,000-mile border with Mexico, which sprawls across four states and nine House districts, a single seat is held by a Republican: Representative Will Hurd of Texas.
And Mr. Hurd, a former undercover C.I.A. officer who barely won re-election in Texas’ 23rd District, the largest of the nine, has emerged as perhaps the most persistent critic in his party of President Trump’s wall.”
You said walls work, too, didn’t you?
“Everybody knows that walls work,” Trump said. “You look at different places they put up a wall, no problem. You look at San Antonio...”
A wall will work?
Guess what the majority of 1st world countries have that works. Universal healthcare.
Post a Comment