-
@Crucial said in US Politics:
Here's a simple rundown of what already exists in the way of 'wall'
It's an important point. The public argument at the moment has been simplified to "Wall" or "No Wall". It isn't even close to being accurate.
The wall Trump campaigned will not get built because that is not what he is asking for. His designs have got shorter and more like current fencing. Also the distance covered has shrunk.
Of course it would be suicide for Trump to go into 2020 without a wall. However it's difficult for him to shrink his barriers anymore and call it a wall. On the other side the Dems don't want him to say "I built the wall".
Also, how retarded have certain Dems arguments have been? If a wall is immoral then so are existing fences. Why don't they put forward legislation remove existing barriers? Surely they are immoral too? Oh they are just talking shit?
If the Dems were smart they would put up a border security bill with at least the same amount of funding. It should limit barriers to existing fence designs (Trump already claimed they work, see twitter fight with Acosta two days ago). The bill could be called the "Extend and Repair Existing Fences Act"
-
Glenn Greenwald and the FBI's actions against Trump.
-
@Frank said in US Politics:
Glenn Greenwald and the FBI's actions against Trump.
The usual flailing from Greenwald, Henry Wallace is a pretty weak person to base an article around considering even if he wasn't a Russian spy his judgement was pretty bloody questionable . He was gullible enough to be taken in by the Potemkin villages he visited and overlook Stalins pre war purges and famines in his assessment of the Soviets.
Oliver Stone who is a coke addled creep and surely on the list to be #metooed did a similarly one eyed doco about Wallace on his batshit crazy/dishonest unauthorised history of the US. -
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
@No-Quarter said in US Politics:
Cede some funding to stengthen the weak parts of the border, as well as some investment in tech to better detect breaches & drug smuggling.
I agree. But that is basically the policy over the last ~15years. It would be hard for Trump to declare a political victory on his biggest campaign promise (or was that 'lock her up'?)
A complete wall is symbolic. The argument against it is the lack of effectiveness. Some areas have natural barriers and no crossings.. drones make more sense here. Then there is the problem that most illegal immigrants arrive at airports and overstay..
I find it fascinating that Trump is meant to be so hard on illegal immigration but won't implement the Republican's 2012 plan. If you want to limit illegal immigration, make it hard to hire illegal immigrants.
A mandatory and improved e-verify system would make it simple for an employer to check the status of a new hire. If they still hire an illegal immigrant the employer would be prosecuted
(Of course there would still be issues with how tough to be on current long term illegals etc)No jobs, therefore no carrot to cross the border. Self deportation was the term used at the time
In 2012 Trump said this policy was "maniacal" and "mean spirited". Judging by policy decisions he hasn't changed his stance on this
I'm not sure how seriously to take his illegal immigration stance without a policy shift that targets employers.
No jobs = higher crime rate.
His illegal immigration stance is very targeted. Somebody who comes in, contributes to a local business and causes no social issues isn't on his radar at all.
-
@MajorRage said in US Politics:
No jobs = higher crime rate.
Yes, the 2012 plan had an amnesty for the current tax paying employees who had behaved themselves. How generous that would be was the question.. too strict would equal crime.
From memory it was on the generous side.The more important part of the plan was the disincentive for new illegal immigrants
@MajorRage said in US Politics:
His illegal immigration stance is very targeted. Somebody who comes in, contributes to a local business and causes no social issues isn't on his radar at all.
He claims anyone crossing illegally is on his radar. 'They need to be vetted' etc etc.
However, by not removing the carrot of relatively easy employment for illegals, more illegals will arrive.
Other countries manage it betterEven if a barrier was 100% effective there is still the problem of airports. Around half of the illegal immigrants in the US arrived at an airport, sea port or crossed a land border legally and overstayed.
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
@MajorRage said in US Politics:
No jobs = higher crime rate.
Yes, the 2012 plan had an amnesty for the current tax paying employees who had behaved themselves. How generous that would be was the question.. too strict would equal crime.
From memory it was on the generous side.The more important part of the plan was the disincentive for new illegal immigrants
@MajorRage said in US Politics:
His illegal immigration stance is very targeted. Somebody who comes in, contributes to a local business and causes no social issues isn't on his radar at all.
He claims anyone crossing illegally is on his radar. 'They need to be vetted' etc etc.
However, by not removing the carrot of relatively easy employment for illegals, more illegals will arrive.
Other countries manage it betterEven if a barrier was 100% effective there is still the problem of airports. Around half of the illegal immigrants in the US arrived at an airport, sea port or crossed a land border legally and overstayed.
Overstaying is part and parcel of having an economy that has accessible borders. You have to strike a balance between welcoming the 99% and deterring the 1%.
'Vetting' is another point like the wall that is spoken about as if it isn't being done already. The US is already one of the more painful western countries to enter or travel through and has very invasive laws around what border control can do such as demanding passwords for all electronic equipment, email and social media accounts. You already need to turn up with all of your paperwork perfect and a lack of flags raised. If you are getting through the border control now with the checks in place and an intention to break the rules then you are probably set up well enough to do so after any reasonable tightening.
Homeland Security also admit that their figures on 'overstayers' are guesswork as there is no biometric system in place to record when someone leaves the country. They estimate overstaying at around 1% of entries. Perhaps investment in the basic recording of when visitors enter and leave is more pertinent than beefing up the checklist on whether to let them enter in the first place? It would mean that people would know that their name was flagged the moment they overstayed and the chances of being caught are reduced. At present the system encourages those that overstay to keep their heads down and stay longer to see if they can go unnoticed.
To @Duluth s point, integrating IRS systems and stronger policing/penalties for employers is what most countries do. In the UK employers are obliged to cover their arses with copies of passports and visas or face the potential of hefty fines.Of the estimated 1% that overstay it is pretty easy to imagine that a fair sized chunk are 'only' committing the crime of overstaying and other than that aren't a risk.
Another aspect is that when entering the US the time frame you are granted is not actually shown on your passport or on any record provided back to you. They basically make it easy for people to screw up and get dates wrong.
Equating overstaying with terrorism or crime is very misleading. That fact that a person has overstayed means that they passed the difficult entry tests in the first place. They can commit a crime just as easy within their allowed period as outside of it.
A few facts and figures here- http://cmsny.org/publications/jmhs-visa-overstays-border-wall/
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in US Politics:
You have to laugh.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/14/donald-trump-buys-fast-food-spread-for-clemson-football-champions/Gold, and the coverage against it proving well truly the gap between your average American and the champagne socialist 'media' class.
The Washington post literally did a 'Fact check' on Trumps's off the cuff remark that the burgers were piled 'a mile high'
Just when you think mainstream media couldn't be any more retarded..
-
-
Crazy, insane 24 hours in American political life.
Critical mass “impeachment” hysteria bombarded across networks over a fake news story, Mueller has to go extraordiary step to disavow it. Why do journalists fall for this guff every single time??
-
It's beyond a joke now. Something pretty damn serious is going on behind the scenes now to try and dethrone Trump.
Who is it that sets the tune that the media play?
What compels journalists to knowingly lie? Is there really a financial reward in it? Is this generation of 'ends justify the means' a reflection of a breakdown in basic morality?
-
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
It's beyond a joke now. Something pretty damn serious is going on behind the scenes now to try and dethrone Trump.
Who is it that sets the tune that the media play?
What compels journalists to knowingly lie? Is there really a financial reward in it? Is this generation of 'ends justify the means' a reflection of a breakdown in basic morality?
It was a miscaculation.
I think the Democrats fed the story hoping it would get hyped. It was sourceless, and impossible for Trump to PROVE wrong beyond a denial. Trump would then respond and make a mistake with the shutdown. The dems and media proxies bet that Mullers team would keep quiet and just let the gossip ciculate. But to everyones surprise Mullers team came out and said the report was false.
Nobody saw that coming. -
@Rembrandt said in US Politics:
What compels journalists to knowingly lie? Is there really a financial reward in it? Is this generation of 'ends justify the means' a reflection of a breakdown in basic morality?
Journalists have always had a bias. I think people with certain views are attracted to certain professions. So that explains why journalists bias has generally been towards the left.
As for why it is worse now?
I think it was bad before, but there was less ability to have a competing news source. For all the talk of censorship, think how bad it was prior to the internet. Disagree with the main narrative? Well you can rant on talkback radio at 2am or start up a newsletter. Idealogical journalism was hard to call out.
The second thing the internet did is make people rush stories out. Don't fact check, just get it out.. paying the price for being wrong is better than not being first
Finally the internet depressed the salaries of journalists. So you get a few things out of that - less talent, true believers who want to influence (aka activist journalists, left & right) and trust fund kids play acting as Woodward and Bernstein.
People who would have been quality journalists 20+ years ago are more likely to be in a different profession.It's just people reacting to different incentives.
-
@Duluth Maybe you are right, the fact that we have the ability to see through their BS now makes it way more apparent. It just seems that occupation is now resident to some of the worst types of people. Just reading Tommy Robinson's book and the absolute hatchet jobs on him are beyond belief, maybe if a journalist had decided to report even slightly accurately on what was going on in Luton and towns around the UK maybe this terrorism, child grooming scandals, racial tensions and hell even Brexit could have been avoided. This is probably more of a 'British politics' thing but at least in Tommys case there seems to be significant collusion between media, police and both the Tory's and Labour, whereas with the US it seems to be between media, democrats, establishment republicans and even services like the fbi.
I guess I just can't wrap my head around knowingly lying about people for a living, surely no paycheck could allay the guilt for ruining peoples lives or even selling your country down the river?
Can't wait until I meet a journo at a social gathering, would be great to ask a few questions
-
@Duluth said in US Politics:
Finally the internet depressed the salaries of journalists. So you get a few things out of that - less talent, true believers who want to influence (aka activist journalists, left & right) and trust fund kids play acting as Woodward and Bernstein.
People who would have been quality journalists 20+ years ago are more likely to be in a different profession.
It's just people reacting to different incentives.That is spot on. I know a lot of ex-journalists and they all gave up because there was no money and people were doing it for free on the internet.
My wife took to speech writing at a university, several of her friends went into teaching. Professional journalism in the old school terms, while perhaps not dead, has certainly changed.
US Politics