So obviously there isn’t a real crisis on the border, and basically everything republicans are saying is bullshit to support their new base’s notions of building a wall and deporting mexicans. But they shut down the government, and it appears to me at least shutting down the government for a month did more damage than not having a wall did. With that being said, it appears democrats are playing the same game. Under Obama dems voted to fund a border fence or improve existing fence, and Obama tried to have child concentration camps but the judges aid they were too dirty. So he started releasing all the illegals that managed to enter here unless they committed repeat or violent crimes in which case the children were possibly taken away.
So what changed? Just because Trump came along said a bunch of stupid stuff then started chanting “build a wall” all of a sudden these establishment democrats are all against it. I can understand if a progressive is totally against a wall or fence and just wants to create a path to citizenship, but people like pelosi or schumer should be all aboard that train. IT appears the wall became a political game and symbolized who hated immigrants and who cares about people, or at least that’s how it seems to be conveyed to me. Where as before it was just about caring about border security, and stopping people from illegally entering while there are people waiting decades to become Americans.
So what is the issue here aside from political games. Surely a wall would eventually pay for it’s self, that is if illegal immigrants are in fact a net negative and not a net positive for our economy. But even so, why shouldn’t we just build a wall. It’s all fine annd dandy if everyone wants to refute Trumps claims and republican voter’s distaste for anyone with a slightly darker complexion than them. But at what point do we just say hey, let’s fund reinforcing the existing fence and throw some more border agents down there. I mean sure, im guessing most people here are on the same side as me when it comes to us needing to address the actual problems and not the treatments. Drugs are smuggled because they’re profitable, people seek aslyum often times as a result of the Gov meddling in countries down south, sort of like how Obama legitimized the coup in hondorus which resulted in caravans of asylum seekers moving north each year. All of these issues could be resolved, make drugs less profitable for cartels, stop funding them to terrorize their countries, and for fucks sake stop fucking with other people’s governments. We don’t give a damn about human rights until we need to use human rights as a justification to invade a country. It’s hypocritical and all bullshit. If someone is actually imprisoning millions of people, essentially making them do slave labor, and denying people quality healthcare, then yeah go ahead and overthrow the government. But only if it’s your government, or if the international community agrees “lets overthrow these guys”.
See this thread from a week or two ago. Short answer: it seems, to many Americans, that a wall would not actually do what Trump claims it would do, and building it would be a logistical and environmental mess.
Yeah it just refutes his claims. But what I want to get at here, isn’t just refuting what trump claims or it doing what he claims. It’s just that dems have supported a fence before, and recent talks indicate they may be willing to give in on this issue if the trumpers will settle on improving a fence and increasing security by other measures than an actual wall.
I think we could reinforce a fence along certain parts, we don’t need a fence crossing everywhere, and if it needs to go through private property and that person doesn’t want to sell then so be it just don’t put a fence there. My main issue is the republicans and democrats are playing a game, and it could result in another shutdown.
But basically to the conclusion to your statement, this whole border wall shit is just black and white. We haven’t had an actual discussion about this, instead it’s just a debate of whether we should have a wall or not. Nobody is discussing the nuances of it, and what or where we could improve fencing or add fencing.
From what I recall judges shot it down and forced him to release them instead of keeping children detained. And the only times they were separated were when violent or repeat crimes were committed. And there were situations where peoples home countries wouldnt allow them back, so obama had to keep them detained.
I’m just going by what I remember when this was all going on. I don’t have any specific citations for this but if you have any refuting what I recall please share. I wouldn’t say obama had child prisons, but he def detained children and separated some families but only under somewhat reasonable conditions.
FWIW, the Democrats in Congress have said, all along, that they would, indeed, support funding for increased border security, but not, specifically, for The Wall. And, Trump has said (paraphrasing) “it must be a wall.”
As a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, I say build the wall. That way we have something to line the GOP up against when it comes time to administer justice for treason.
So it is a political game then. Trump likely refuses any compromise where dems fund for increased border agents, checks, cameras, or fence improvement. I’m guessing the issue here is Trump wants a 100% border wall he wants the whole thing. But since that will cause numerous issues with private land, and flooding, and whatever else the Dems are refusing it.
That’s the basis they’re operating under? I still don’t see why the GOP can’t convince trump to settle on a partial wall, IE a fence, that only covers certain areas or reinforces existing fence.
Let me ask this though, a wall is obviously ineffective. What could dems or even republicans propose to get the other side to actually fund something related to border security.
Is this actually true? How many cocaine processing operations use these 30 patented chemicals? What could we do to stop them from getting them, and would that even be a good idea if say they’re going to switch to a more dangerous method of processing cocaine. I know this is a different topic but I can’t figure out what to google to find what you’re referencing here.
Read about how the CIA brought crack to the streets of LA and NYC, primarily to black neighborhoods.
The CIA has a long history of enabling industrial production/shipment of drugs.
The United States of America is the strongest country in earth and the majority of drugs come though legal ports of entry, if they wanted to stop it they.
And… Trump is holding a gun to the head of America, while throwing a childish temper tantrum. You don’t give into a 5 year old in such a circumstance, why should we with a elderly man? A child (not unlike Trump) will just do it again, and again.
Trump is a ‘man’ not interested in facts or educating himself, but relies on ‘gut feelings’. This is not something that you acquiesce to.
My understanding is that the medellin cartel imported about 80-90% of the cocaine into the US, and they weren’t working for the US government as far as I know.
THere is speculation that the DEA was told to look the other way when the contras in nicaragua were importing cocaine through mexico. I believe that is what Gary Webb wrote about.
But I believe the crack epidemic happened because the medellin cartel imported so much cocaine into america that it went from an expensive upper class party drug to a cheap street drug (prices dropped from 50k a kilo down to 5-10k I think).