I'm not pro 'Open Borders' - but I am pro, helping refugees trying to make better lives for themselves and applying for legitimate asylum like the ones who are frequently demonised in the right wing press.

I'm also very sympathetic to those who might have come into the US as children and be undocumented but active workers etc. ... they might technically be 'illegal' but the US is there home and to send them back to a country where they don't speak the language or understand the culture is inhumane imho.

Yeah I'm a UK citizen, I could easily become a US Citizen if I wanted - however if I did I'd be dual nationality as the UK doesn't recognize someone renouncing its citizenship.

No one that I know of at all advocates for open borders (except Brian in a hybrid way). No one. If that's the counter and thus we have to put up the wall because there are a ton of Libs that want open borders than that is Steven Miller winning and that is all.

I ,love the comment above re: gun rights arguments. The NRA and powers that be refuse to let there be an educated discussion about any in between actions because its always, "They're takin' ur guns!!!' which is just not true but it riles up those that can't think of anything other than 1 or 2, not 1.5.

Well I do know a few Christian socialists that are for open borders, but they aren't that numerous. The point is well taken that most people aren't for open borders, but they are for a more open policy than the Trump administration is for - generally a lot of people on the left are for the 2013 compromise. Some would like to go a little farther.

I don't see any need for an upper limit. If you view, as you've said, America as a nation that should be a pre-eminent world power - and I agree that with our position it's our responsibility to be that - then I think it's wrong to act in a manner than says refugees are everyone else's problem. With the power comes the attendant responsibilities.

I disagree with the board's assessment that 'nobody wants open borders'. It's pretty clear that many do want unsecured borders, an option for those who violate them to become citizens despite said violation, and the option for some jurisdictions to actively undermine our government(sanctuary cities). I think the distinction between 'open borders' and 'it's not worth the effort to secure the borders' is barely worth making. Even if you're not overtly advocating for open borders, you're ok with them if that's the position you take. I can't speak for the motives of anyone of course, but it's certainly not an argument I could personally make without realizing I was being flagrantly dishonest about the issue. It brings to mind a lot of policies in the Civil Rights Era, with all the 'I'm not for segregation, but … ' advocacies of that time.

This is only true if people also want to de-fund border security entirely (note: "Abolish ICE" wouldnt' do that, as it is Customs and Border Protection who is responsible for border enforcement). There is a marked difference between open borders and reduced penalties for those who are in the country undocumented.

Ya, I don't quite understand the difference between "not being for open borders", and, being in favor of granting citizenship for people who enter illegally; or opposition to the use of non-deadly force on the border.

It's kind of like with gun control when there's no reason to argue for more restrictive gun control than you need to - it only makes sense to to argue for "the next step", or to argue against some next step going in other direction. So there's really no way to discern what the real intent is unless you break down the logic of the arguments that are being made, and try to figure out whether they actually do address that next step (or only steps far beyond that).

And I think the argument, that I've seen pop up hear a few times, that illegal immigrants from the south are beneficial to the economy, and in fact, maybe our economy would actually collapse without their cheap, unregulated labor - is kind of fascinating. The advantages of workers who can easily be exploited is such a bizarre justification to me. It's like an argument against the minimum wage and other worker protections. According to this logic, we should not only let them in, we should specifically chose to let them in in this undocumented manner that relieves businesses of the requirement to treat them fairly. And then I guess - grant them citizenship down the road after we've gotten enough cheap labor from them.

Personally, I think the USA has a moral responsibility to take in as many refugees as we can - and I've seen in my city (one of the highest per capita refugee destinations in the U.S.) what a great impact refugees can have on a community.

The southern border is so much more complicated to me - because of the undocumented nature of those entries. It's not a problem that can be solved completely, or ever fixed or helped much by an expensive and environmentally-disastrous wall. But, I definitely think that less illegal entry, and less illegal overstaying, should always be a goal, and that that goal should be pursued with patrols, drones, deportations, more scrutiny on those who hire illegal immigrants, etc. And I'd much rather permit more to enter legally than exploit cheap labor that enter illegally.

Regarding my previous comment about encouraging the highly educated to immigrate, Canada may have a pretty good model.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

I think its all a matter of degrees. Open borders like the EU countries is a 10, North Korea is a 0, allowing undocumented workers to cross over, citizenship, stay in the US etc. is maybe a 5 etc.

Its easy to say I'm not for "total" open borders, but there is a gradient of much more "flexible" border crossing (legal and undocumented) that many here is advocating above and beyond current laws.

I don't think many pro-undocumented here have clearly express what their POV is other than undocumented deserves our sympathy (true), undocumented are not all criminals and add to the economy (true), Wall is bad/won't work, many Trump supporters re: immigration or undocumented are borderline/racists etc.

Let's agree to disagree. I see "practical" limits to how many and "types" we can absorb (and TBH, want). To prevent this, we need to have some quotas to encourage more of who we want and less of who we do not.

Within the EU, sure, but coming from outside, Europe can be very restrictive, including having requirements for employment, knowing the language (which we'd consider a racist requirement in the U.S.), etc. And if you overstay your visa you're going to have a hard time getting back in.

It'd be difficult to just sneak into the EU as an American, but, if you could, they wouldn't grant you citizenship. This is one of those rare areas where the U.S. left is further left than Europe. And some European countries have moved further to the right due to a waves of mostly-documented asylum seekers - we can only guess how they'd react to millions of undocumented people just showing up and permanently residing there.

Not sure I really believe she believes this or just a way to reinforce Trump's spine by mocking him.

Don't agree about not having a legacy if there is no Wall. Maybe no visible legacy but unfortunately for us, the politics of Trumpism will be with us long after he's gone.

Looking forward to Trump's response.

Ann Coulter predicts Trump will 'fold' on border wall demand | TheHill

Oh, Trump will have a legacy. Just not the one he wants.

This sounds more like a strategy of how to build a nation in a text sim and not at all how to act as human beings in the 21st century.

Haven't played that game yet. But that's pretty much what is happening now.

You remember that Chicago Alderman who's office was raided by the FBI right as Michael Cohen was pleading guilty? And the speculation was because of his law firm's connection to Trump? Well it wasn't:


Ald. Edward Burke charged with attempted extortion of Burger King owners - Chicago Tribune

Twitter not being kind to the departing Paul Ryan and Trey Gowdy. Good. Hopefully we get the chance to say goodbye to Devin Nunes soon.

House passes bill to reopen govt without new border wall money. All but 5 R's vote no, all Dems vote yes

The Russian spy case has sooo many twists and turns.

You mean the American who got arrested for spying in Russia? Yeah some seem to be a bit far-fetched-he's a spy too and arranged this to get Marina Butina in a spy swap. Going to be real crazy if its turns out to be true.

Trump says he's willing to have the shutdown last for years.

Maybe we can just shut down one particular branch for years?

How his base can literally watch him claim he would own the shut down and not blame the dems, then he shuts it down and they blame the dems is beyond me.

You're suppose to ignore his earlier claim (like his claim that Mexico would pay for the wall) and only listen to him blaming democrats.

There is also apparently 3000+ terrorists coming in via the Southern Border. They are just flowing in. :rolleyes:

Meanwhile in Mueller news-a judge has extended the grand jury's mandate for 6 months. It was set to expire on the 6th. So I guess Mueller won't be wrapping up last Thanksgiving any more.

This what the Wash Post found out about Whelan's past:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...=.3a43cd22255c

Meanwhile in Germany, the largest hack in their history has been revealed:


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...an-politicians

Or perhaps give out raises?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/04/polit...own/index.html

I know we're numb to everything, but Trump threatening to declare an emergency and have the military build the wall is really dangerous. It would be nice to see an elected Republican nix this idea.

In other news, the military is now saying there is no timeline for withdrawal in Syria. This after the State Department yesterday said we aren't going anywhere.

It's absolutely frickin' crazy what some people will excuse or forget he said.

There has to be a psychological word for it. One word wherein they will literally excuse or ignore everything in the past for the reasoning du jour that fits the narrative.

Power

It's an extraordinary abuse of power. Or potential one. And all of this because the wee little man wants to build a monument to himself. Yes, I'm a bit cynical.

I don’t think you are too far off. What is he known for and lived his life doing? Putting the “Trump” name up in gold letters wherever he could. Psychologically speaking there is a percentage of desire to build this wall because he knows it will keep his name living in for a long time.

On the other hand it was a major campaign promise and we the people complain all the time that we don't like it when politicians don't do what they campaign on.

Criticizing the idea, the shutdown over it, the whole 'emergency' concept, etc. is all appropriate; but while we might prefer Trump to not get the wall built and not trust his motives for desiring it, I doubt many would be favoring elected officials not trying to follow through on the things that that got them votes in the first place.

Wasn't this largely what some voting for Trump were saying though? There's no way he's going to go through with the more extreme things he campaigned on so that was their rationale for voting for him.

Sure. You can make an argument that it's better for us to ignore what politicians say during the campaign because they don't mean it anyway - I think 'suspect' would be an extremely charitable characterization of that argument, but it certainly can be made. I personally don't think that segment of the Trump electorate which didn't care what he actually said because they didn't believe he'd do it is a good model for modern politics. Anyone else care to hold forth on that and prove that I'm misguided in thinking most others wouldn't as well?

Except a major caveat to that promise was Mexico would pay for the wall. How many less votes would he have gotten if he said the taxpayers were footing the bill even if it mean shutting down the government?

Removing "...and Mexico will pay for it!" would have lost him the election, so he's not exactly following through here.

Wait a second.

His whole campaign promise was built around Mexico paying for the wall. There were chants and calls and responses at every rally.

So, the cynic might argue he’s going out of his way to break his campaign promise.

I should have clicked to the last page. What they said.

No it was a promise to have Mexico pay for it which BTW I am for. I am literally for anything that doesn't involve a quid pro quo that another country wants to build in America for Americans and America with no strings attached at no cost to the U.S. Taxpayer.

Trump had the option to get 25 billion for his wall but refused it because it came with a DACA fix. If the wall was really important, he'd make a deal and get it. Of course we don't even know anymore what he means when he says wall. Maybe it covers the whole border, but maybe it doesn't. It might be concrete, but it might be steel. In the end he's just looking for something big enough to take pictures in front of.

dola

Bolton today said we aren't leaving Syria until ISIS is defeated and the Kurds are assured of protection. A few weeks ago Trump assured us ISIS was already defeated.

It's honest to God dangerous that we have an executive branch that routinely ignores the word of the President.

double dola

From the WaPo:

do you have a link to that whole article?

This. I’m tired of hearing folks (generalizing) say they like Trump because he speaks the way he does and “tells it like it is”. However, once somebody calls him out on his BS like Mexico paying for the wall it immediately becomes “well we knew he didn’t mean that literally”.

You can’t have it both ways.

What a coincidence.

https://mobile.reuters.com/article/a...mpression=true

403 Forbiddenarticle about why trump supporters think the way they do.

This. Thank you.

Every news org should have a live fact checker scrolling during what is sure to be an incredibly misleading address tomorrow.

I really hope the networks don't broadcast it at all. Nothing that hasn't been heard at a rally or read on Twitter. The news channels can cover it (along with fact checkers of course!). If he tries this "national emergency" crap, I hope its followed by Dems lining up to start impeachment proceedings/lawsuits to stop it.

They'll broadcast it and then give the Democrats a chance to respond like they did in 2011.

The fact that he referred to it as a humanitarian and national security crisis worries me he may be nuts enough to try and claim a national emergency and get the funding that way.

This, this is happening. It's going to be this and then lawsuits and a supreme court battle which he'll likely win. Crazy but one step closer to authoritarianism and the GOP losing the mantle on fiscal responsibility.

From what I was reading he would have a difficult time winning. Need to prove there is an actual emergency or invasion, and considering crossing are actually down from prior numbers that may be a difficult task.

What will happen is that it will be bloody meat for his rabid base to claim the Dems are blocking him and its all their fault.

NBC on the debate to show the statement:


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/all/air...m_npd_nn_tw_ma

Hasn't the last 4 decades been evidence enough?

So Sarah Sanders made a claim that 4000 immigrants had been stopped by Border Patrol at the southern border in the first half of 2018 because they were in the terrorist database, It was actually 6. No not 6000 just 6.


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...-first-n955861

And that's actually six names similar enough to the hundreds of thousands on the watch list that they were questioned. Just like Sen. Ted Kennedy was years ago.

dola

From the NYT:


I feel no obligation to understand anyone with this mindset.

Trump's speech should be entertaining (and the talking heads post-mortem even more so). Don't think its going to change many minds but its good to see he is trying a traditional way to build support.

I'll admit, as pissed off as I continue to be, I'm completely exhausted with trump this and trump that. He's an incredible buffoon, a narcissist, a failed dictator, a rich, entitled, playboy-wannabe, willing to say anything to anyone to get what he wants snake oil salesman, who would sell his parents grave sites if he could build a casino to make some money. He's a disrespecting, fuck-up of a human trash pile for a person and he probably should be relegated to Alex Jones old spot on the fringe airways of life. Just how anyone can take him seriously is beyond comprehension, and frankly, I'm just tired of the constant defense that he's the president so we have to respect him and do what he says logic, when he's provided a literal endless sheet of evidence to the contrary. Not only that, but there was a nearly endless sheet prior to the election that this was who he is, and that we had a pretty good guess as to how he would govern. I think when we're at the point of the administration, openly lying, being fact checked, having dumped close to 10,000 lies, big and little, and we still have to keep attacking their credibility to prove them wrong that we're in a very dangerous spot. That kind of defense shows that the administration clearly could attempt to say anything, about anyone, and a large chunk of the population would believe it and go along with it. It's this very type of social psychology that leads to the kinds of ethnic cleansing the world has produced previously. It's a massive test for our current government and checks and balances.

Ocasio-Cortez reminds me of Sarah Palin, another talented young communicator who made a big splash in national politics before having her lack of knowledge painfully exposed. This is a cautionary tale for Ocasio-Cortez. My latest in @PostOpinions: https://t.co/bHmNmcyAD0

— Max Boot (@MaxBoot) January 8, 2019

Establishment white dudes in D.C. spend more time thinking about AOC than I spend thinking about any one thing.

She's an easy link to say that democrats are socialists. Of course they're going to hype her.

Just for shits and giggles I've been checking Fox News homepage everyday since the new Congress. Without fail, EVERY time the headline and first story has involved AOC and/or included her image on a story.

Yeah, I don't understand why some people don't get the GOPs infatuation with her. It's just more fear mongering to rally support and radicalize the base, same shit they've done for decades. Easy target, she's awful.

I'm going to predict Trump will not declare an emergency. He's all bluster, but at heart a coward. I expect he rants a bit and says they will honest to God do it at some point!

According to a BBC report I read today, more terrorists have been stopped on the Canadian border than the Mexican one.

And by stopped we mean, had a name similar enough to the hundreds of thousands on the watch list. I can't imagine if a real terror threat had been stopped at either border that it wouldn't have been publicized.

Shhhh! Don't let Fox News hear you or we will have a Wall at both borders.

Due to some failed redactions in a Manafort filing we learned today that Manafort met with a Russian intelligence operative in 2016 and shared polling data.

I have a feeling this is going to be Trump giving false numbers, insisting not having a wall is a threat to our country, claim he would prefer to do this with bipartisan support, and claim he could do this without democrats so they're simply being obstructionists.

Everyone knows that the Republican party has always loathed obstructionists!

They had Sanders for that. AOC focus just tends to backfire, especially when they focus on things like she danced in a video in high school (*gasp*). You don't go up against a charismatic telegenic young attractive candidate. That's just basics of good PR.

Politicians are idiots on both sides of the pond.

MPs will vote on the Brexit deal soon, and the feeling is it may well fail. The EU have said it cannot be renegotiated.

So it’s prudent right to have plans and protocols in place in case the government deal doesn’t pass?

Our idiot MPs, who are generally against the deal, and mostly against Brexit in general, have just passed a bill limiting the government from spending on such advance planning, to try and prevent a no-deal scenario.

But we are leaving on March 29, so all this does is mean that the chaos they have predicted, which was at least partly scaremongering, is now more likely to happen.

Or maybe they plan to vote for a deal no-one actually wants? Not the EU, not parliament, not Remainers, and not most Brexiteers.

In essence it seems that they have voted for a bill to maximise the chances of chaos, just to be able to say “we told you this would happen”. Fuckwits.

Supreme Court vacates stay of contempt order in the mystery company's contempt case with Mueller. May learn the identity at some point now.

She's a woman and not white.

The emergency powers sets a bad precent but would allow a Democratic President to claim a "health emergency" and enact Medicare for All. Or a "climate emergency" and enact strict regulations and funding toward it.

So maybe he gets his statue but I don't think Republicans will be happy with how this precedent plays out over time.

Hmmmm

And a detail that got cut from our final days story the other day - Manafort sent at least one memo advising Trump to focus on Wi and MI

— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) November 9, 2016

Sanders was also never a democrat.

Are we allowed to say she's kind of hot? I've lost track of where we are as a society on that point.

Or do we need a "Can a U.S. public official be hot?" thread for that?

So how stupid were Manafort's lawyers here or wanted to let others know what Mueller might have on them?


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/u...-kilimnik.html

For some of us it's more of a Venn diagram...

And by my previous comment I mean yes to this.

(If there was any doubt.)

Stay tuned for a commercial for "Trump Tacos" live from the oval office.

The global John Bolton humiliation tour is at least one good thing to come out of the Trump admin.

THE ILLEGALS ARE COMING TO MURDER US ALL!!!!!!!!!!!

That was disgusting.

That may have been the most un-compelling 15 minutes of television in my lifetime...on both sides.

And I've watched a fuckton of PBS.

Just another Dumb Day in American History.

Didn’t watch it because it was obvious as to what it would be...a misinformation campaign. Good to hear that his economic advisors still haven’t explained to him that his NAFTA 2.0 deal does not mean Mexico is paying for the wall.

WOrld's Greatest Negotiator

From the NYT:

Trump is particularly unsuited for the presidency because he was born rich, coddled by his dad, and has never learned how actual deal making works. He's always just gotten what he wants by asking for it. Or he makes threats, or stiffs contractors, or declares bankruptcy.

Someone who came through the ranks as a politician or an actual businessman would understand the fundamentals of dealmaking--you give up something they want to get something you want.

So, look at this wall kerfuffle. It was his most visible campaign promise. He wants it (or at least wants to look like he wants it). He's had two years to negotiate with Senate Democrats for it. But he's done nothing to actually try and get the wall built. In any normal political process, he would have come to the table wanting his wall. The Dems would have come with some things they wanted (DACA action, social security stabilization, restricted offshore drilling, etc.). There would have been negotiations, and there would have been a deal. Trump would have gotten a wall; the Dems would have gotten some concessions; and both sides would go back to their voters claiming victory.

But all he's done instead is whine over and over "I want a wall." Just two years of saying he wants it without doing anything to actually try and make it happen.

This makes sense when you understand the man-child that we elected President. That's all he's ever needed to do. When he was two years old and wanted a cup of milk, he cried for it, and his dad fired the maid if she didn't bring it fast enough. When he was twenty-two, he did it the same way, and just took his toys and went home (i.e. declared bankruptcy) when it didn't work. And by the time he was sixty-two, people with sense were wise to his game, so the only people left for him to play with were shady Russian banks. But at no time did he ever feel the consequences of his actions or have to learn how actual grown-up businessmen do deals.

Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Billions of dollars are sent to the State of California for Forrest fires that, with proper Forrest Management, would never happen. Unless they get their act together, which is unlikely, I have ordered FEMA to send no more money. It is a disgraceful situation in lives & money!"


This should be criminal. If he actually does this, and who knows if he can, it will cost lives and property. This is nothing but a gotcha because he wont get his funding. How on earth can people continue to support him?

old norms, we're not doing that anymore

Looking forward to the obvious Forrest Gump memes in 5...4...3...

Run QuikSand, Run!