How is it not completely unethical that the left wants illegal immigration to be just fine unless it ends up in their backyard?

It's actually a fantastic play to his base and makes the democrats look like hypocrites the more they complain.

Most U.S. unauthorized immigrants live in just 20 metro areas | Pew Research Center

"the left wants illegal immigration to be just fine" is an incredibly simplified version of the truth, and, illegal immigrants appear to be pretty darn evenly shared between red and blue states already - certainly not something "the left" are pushing for since they are only going to live far away.

Adding more people to Democrat leaning areas before the Census seems like a solid strategy.

We are truly in some absurd times when Donald Trump using federal resources to truck illegal immigrants INTO the country is considered a fantastic play to his base. And you think that would make the Democrats look like hypocrites?

It also seems like a fantastic way to shoot himself in the foot in regards to 2020. "Vote for me! Immigration is still my one and only concern, and maybe I didn't build any kind of wall when we had complete control of the government, and in fact I actually trucked immigrants into the country as some kind of tantrum, but with your continued support and donations I think I can probably do something about it this time!" Sadly, I don't disagree that his base would eat that up, but should they?

Personally, I still consider the Dems immediate 'compromise' away from any kind of universal healthcare a decade ago a crucial betrayal, to the point that I haven't voted for them since (I live in Oregon, a lifetime blue, vote-by-mail state that doesn't even tabulate the first vote until 9pm Eastern on election night, so my presidential vote is effectively a thought exercise FWIW) and I would dearly like to see that whole class of 3rd wave Dems cleared out and the party culture scrubbed. Meanwhile, more and more of Trump's high-priority policies turn into mush every day, and he continually lights up his own hand-picked, swamp drainin' skeleton crew of incompetents then sets them off running through the cobwebbed hallways of every government branch, down into the massive, smoldering ash heap of alleged conservative values and standards. He's jacked up the country's debt to astronomical levels for no particular reason or effect, inevitably concedes his own, his party's & his country's concerns to anything that enters his field of vision, yet it seems Trump's supporters could not care less, just as long as he continues to cobble together the half-literate sentence fragments that fall out of his demented maw into something nasty directed leftwards.

Shouldnt those 'illegal' immigrants have a pretty good claim to actually be having a good shot at being granted legal status if Trump does this ? Pretty sure a lawyer could have fun with this. I mean, if the owner of a store instructs his employees to bring people into his store at night, i doubt it would be called trespassing in court.

I feel like I've been screaming into the void, but I keep pointing out that this plan has already happened in El Paso.

You think Trumps base would call him a hypocrite as he dumps those illegals in those cities that his base doesnt like?

I think his base will be laughing their collective asses off.

This is Trump we're talking about after all, none of this exists outside of Twitter. It's not like he has a plan to actually make any of this happen.

Yup. Even after 3 years, people still act like he's a normal President who announces policies after giving them much thought and then starts to push the levers of government to implement them.

He's not. For good or for ill, he is not. He announces whatever the last idea that flitted through his head is, he has no plans to implement it, and even if he did, he'd has no structure in place to do it.

No, I don't think his base would call him a hypocrite, I think his base can't see their own noses. I think everybody else in the world would call him and his base obvious hypocrites. I think it's dumbfounding that conservatives have gone through three years of absolute continued failure on the immigration front (and every other), and yet they're still deluded enough to think that this wet fart by a pouting baby would constitute some sort of major win. "HOho he's REALLY not following through on what he promised us now!! That's got them on the run!"



Does his base also find it hilarious that nobody in Canada, South America, Europe, Asia, India or Scandinavia respects us any more?

It also seems worth pointing out that those liberal sanctuary cities/states his base doesn't like are also largely the ones already paying more than their fare share to provide for the shithole areas where Trump's base resides. I have absolutely no doubt those folks would blindly laugh through the ignorance and hypocrisy of using federal resources to further stress their own support while frothing about socialism and the free market, but the question remains: should they?

They are already in the country. What's another 129 miles to LA.


If you really do not believe this reinforces his existing base (and gives them a chuckle), not sure what to say. It definitely does.

Yes, absolutely agree he should have done something on immigration in first 2 years instead of chasing down Obamacare. Just like Obama should have in his first 2. But more important things were the priority then to both.

I agree with this. Didn't vote for him and likely won't vote for him in 2020, so I don't consider myself in his "base". But I would be chuckling quite a bit.

Seriously, the vast majority does not thinks he's a normal President. Pretty sure there is wide-spread acknowledgement that he is very different (since WW2 at least?)

FWIW, China is not Asia. Trump has actually strong support in several Asian countries including Philippines, Australia, South Korea, Japan.

America's international image continues to suffer | Pew Research Center

However, I assume your key point is world view of US has declined since Obama and that is true.

"Policy" for the right is largely just a collection of stupid charges of being hypocrites.

You don't want a wall, but your house has walls!

You don't like guns, but the Secret Service has guns!

You don't immigrants in cages, but you don't want them in your city!

They're all dumb and none of them are even worth debating. Dumping immigrants in any city is against the law. If the lack of morality doesn't concern you, that should.

And shit like this is why I think his chances of reelection are different than any other incumbent. By this point in a normal presidency, the President would be trying to find a middle ground on policy in order to keep the independents engaged and maybe flip some of the more moderate members of the other party. Trump has doubled down on keeping his 35% happy and giving everyone else the middle finger.

Outside of a major, race changing event Trump's only real chance is to keep his base engaged and hope the GOP can pull off historic levels of voter suppression.

Personally, I think the Dems need to rethink their outrage at this petty move by a petty man.

He has nothing to lose, since his base loves it, and they don't seem nearly as interested in the moral high ground (for all that religious conservatives make up a good portion of the GOP).

The party with the moral high ground, and indeed, seems to count it as a high value is the Democratic party.

So getting all outragey about illegal immigrants being sent their way, after how much they support any infringement of the rights of those same immigrants, even in the face of federal and state laws and the sensible need to make immigration an orderly process, comes off as extemely hypocritical.

In other words, it's a spiteful move by a shitty president. But he looks the same as he always does. It is the Dems that look terrible not simply opening their arms to the policy and saying, "Yes, please come to our cities, where we will support you and give you a chance at a better life and to escape persecution."

I think you underestimate people voting along party lines and the role the perception of a good economy plays.

I have several family members who are good people, and hate a lot of what Trump does, but they always use the economy as an excuse to continue to support him.

Unless the economy tanks, and Trump somehow gets the blame for it, I think he wins reelection easily. Especially when you factor in the lack of a candidate by the left with any enthusiasm.

If people vote along party lines without major suppression the dem wins the general every time.

Like in 2016 right?

Agreed.

If the GOP thinks losing the general election by 3 million and squeaking by in the electoral by about 75,000 votes is something they can replicate, then by all means.

My point is Trump wasn't your typical presidential candidate, he hasn't been your typical president, you can't treat him like your typical incumbent. His party got slaughtered in the mid-terms despite a strong economy because people were voting against him on tickets. That's something the GOP has even admitted, yet Trump has done nothing to fix that issue. The closest Trump has come to addressing that particular issue is deciding to punt on healthcare until after 2020 because it's a losing issue outside of his base.

With a strong democrat turnout in 2020 Trump has to pull in independents and some moderate dems to have a chance and his approval with both of those groups is under water. Trump won independents 46-42 over Hillary. Flip that the other way and he loses. Trump can't continue to ignore 65% of the country and expect that to be a winning hand.

I think it's a safe bet that Trump loses the popular vote by the same if not more in 2020. It will come down to if the Dems can win Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.

I agree 100% here. I really wish Dems would just let him be petty and use his greatest hits of pettiness in ads for 2020. Getting the left to jump up and down screaming over everything he does is part of his strategy. He wants the general public to get tired of the reporting on his pettiness.

I generally agree with your thinking. Trump is far from safe in 2020, even with a strong economy.

But you should have written this to Lathum, who spelled out a much more cogent and detailed argument for how Trump could win. Instead, you responded to him with a glib data point which has nothing in actuality to do with how 2020 will go.

My response to you was merely in kind-- a meaningless data point, which nonetheless pointedly countered yours.

The messaging from the left should be that they will welcome these people seeking asylum (not "illegals") and that they will ultimately make these communities stronger.

Oh, and that the president uses them as pawns - we will treat them as people.

Is there any argument that shipping and dumping asylum seekers to any city isn't against the law? I know we've gotten numb to all the things Trump has said and done, but it actually is important to say this idea is illegal.

Well sure -- stress that it's illegal. But have a plan to deal with it because illegality won't stop him from doing anything.

That will be an interesting social experiment for sure.

California is that one US State (e.g. 5-7 largest economy in the world, close to border etc.) that may be successful by allowing more unauthorized into their system. They are very big, lean left (vs Texas leaning right), and would be welcoming.

But can CA take all that will come? And assume it would welcome all asylum seekers worldwide and not just south of the border. Interesting scenario, maybe a good plot for a book.

I'm actually not following the logic on how it is against the law in the first place, unless the point you're making is that the illegal immigrants and asylum seekers should be removed from the country (the nornal GOP stance).

Assuming you're not and that your belief is that it is best to keep them here in the country (or allow them the choice to stay), then we fall back to who has control of them in the first place. That would be the federal government, under DHS/ICE/Border Patrol. They have them in custody. And they may release them in any manner which seems appripriate to them and which does not result in harm to the immigrants.

If they aren't returning them to their home countries, and they are not holding them in custody forever (presuming we're all against that), then they must be released somewhere in the country.

Is it not the prerogative of that authority to make a decision on where best to do that? Even if you question their motives (definitely in this case), isn't it clear that they have the right to determine how best to release those in their custody?

It's certainly possible even probable that there are laws detailing how this should go, but I am guessing those are federal statutes. I'm not sure those would be violated by this move.

Taking this devil's advocate argument even one step further, there is indeed some argument to be made that these immigrants are actually better off being released in sanctuary cities.

Reports have been consistent that DHS lawyers found the plan to be illegal, and that may be why Nielsen is gone and the ICE director nomination was withdrawn.

The best plan for this would be to greatly expand the staffing of the immigration courts, but that's another thing Stephen Miller won't let happen. If the system functions well, then it isn't a crisis, and if it isn't a crisis they can't cut legal immigration.

From my link above. I wonder what the discrepancy is? Maybe its the wording of US instead of specifically Trump?

Your link is about their view on the US. thesloppy's is their view on the US President. They like us, but think we picked a moron to lead us.

Yeah, that's the distinction FWIW. That graph was actually generated using the link you sent (which is the same article I got the first image from) and there was a choice to generate it based on 'US favorability' or 'confidence in the US president".

Take it FWIW on the reasons its illegal per USA Today article.

It sounds kinda weak to me, similar to the "Muslim from some countries ban", but I'm sure there are better arguments out there.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/3450858002/

And it does say this

And what have the Dems done to flip that number? They have no one who moves the needle and inspires people.

People knew what Trump was when they voted him in 2016, and I don't underestimate the power of people seeing their 401K padded, or the republican PR machine.

Okay. I mixed up the terms when I replied to you with "Trump has strong support". However, your original point was countries not "respecting us anymore".

I'll concede majority of countries don't like Trump. But there are still a bunch of countries that respect us as a country.

I agree. But let's be fair, still a little too early, its just starting to get fun.


Absolutely agree with us. Market is up as of 33% as of April but wouldn't call it "great". From the chart below, Obama made us feel alot better same period but that we because we were at a greater low.

Stock Market Performance by President | MacroTrends

The top voter issues per Gallup as of Nov 2018

https://news.gallup.com/poll/244367/...migration.aspx

This.

I do think the usual predictive trends are different for this president in this time. So I have no idea how it will actually turn out.

But my econ professor in college circa 1994 made a good pont (and he was one of the smartest people I met in college). He said that a strong economy is one of the biggest indicators that an incumbent will be re-elected. He predicted Clinton would easily win re-election if the economy continued to improve from the early 90s recession which sunk Bush I. This was at a time when Gingrich was leading the charge to take back Congress (which they did of course). Very divisive time, much like now.

I fear Lathum is right and it will be much the same if the economy remains strong.

Revisionist history here. When Bernie lost to Hillary there were Bernie supporters trying to convince others that Trump was closer to Bernie ideologically than Hillary.

Go back and read the first couple pages of posts in this thread. For the most part, no one had any idea what the hell a Trump Presidency was going to be like.

Again, the GOP was trounced in the mid-terms because of Trump.

I've said something similar before, but with the earlier prison reforms and canceling of global trade agreements being some of the only policies he's managed to get into place, he's destabilized a GOP structure that used to be ironclad, and if he can start trucking those immigrants into the country Trump's spectacular incompetence will have unintentionally made him into the most progressive President we've had in the last 40 years.

Is Buttigieg the man to beat Trump?

I've personally come to like Yang's platform a lot.....that said, I think universal income is probably an absolute non-starter at this point in time, and I simply like his insistence that we need to make a cultural shift towards a capitalist economy that values human factors rather than just the bottom line of an accounting ledger.

You mean posts like this, Atocep?

Guess molson was right on the political loyalty part.

I guess good time as any to do a retrospective.

#1, #3, #5 and #7 I will give him. Although #5 wasn't all him, he benefited from Obama.

#2 is still a work in progress and trending in right direction.

#4 obviously a fail so far in Europe and Latin American. Not so sure about Asia or South America. A big win with Israel.

#6 is a big fail and no possible rebound that I can see.

How did your predictions, hopes and wants turn out?

Just saw an interview with Yang. Very interesting man. I like what he is selling as well.

But he seems kind of laid back. Does he have the charisma to win an election of this magnitude.

Curious how # 2 is trending in the right direction, because he is shitting on the constitution to declare a made up emergency? Otherwise what has he done?

He did nothing when he controlled all the branches. No new wall construction has been built, only existing reinforcement. He faces opposition not only from the dems, but many people in his own party. The DHS secretary just resigned. Trump is talking about actually bringing illegals into the country and dumping them in sanctuary cities. Should the emergency declaration pass he is facing years of eminent domain lawsuits.

Then there is the thousands of children ripped from their parents arms with no plans to reunite them, and could be years before they do.

Probably not. I think any progressive candidate is going to have a tough time taking votes from Bernie Sanders, if only because he has such a head start in terms of name recognition and familiarity. As you imply, it would probably take some remarkable charisma for any of the young guns to step out in front, and Yang probably doesn't have it.

In that regard, on some basic level I still am attracted to Cory Booker, strictly because he's the only person who seems to consistently exhibit the appropriate level of anger & frustration that our government deserves. I'd love to see Yang's platform attached to Booker's personality.

Where is your anger at the thousands of kids ripped from their parents in the US because their parents committed a crime?

Its a sad situation. But when you do something illegal and kids are involved, the kids suffer.

Come to the USA legally. And I bet your kids arent ripped from your arms.

Wrong.

These people are coming here and seeking asylum, which is completely legal.

Comparing them to Americans who aren't fit to be parents is also apples and oranges. Kids put into the system are closely tracked and every effort is made to return them to their parents when they complete whatever program they are required to. If anything we favor the birth parents too much.

There is zero justification for how that is and was handled, but if you hate the scary brown people coming to rape your daughters it is easy to excuse.

Dola-

And I have PLENTY of anger towards people who have kids and don't take care of them. Ever been exposed to the foster system? I have.

JFC for the thousandth time, seeking asylum is legal.

Really? They are seeking asylum? You guys are either ignorant or crazy. They could easily go to an embassy in their country and seek asylum. They dont have to pay some smuggler to sneak them across the border.

You guys are not that blind are you?

Every day. Its a sad situation and no one should have to go through what those kids do. But when your parents are oing something illegal, the kids suffer.

Fix the system. Quit bitching. All the dems are doing is bitching. Where is their plan?

You come across illegally, and you pay the price, and the kids pay an infinitely worse price.

If I drink and drive with my kid in the car, I lose my kid. Break the law, pay the price.

This asylum crap is just that crap. Those people are not coming across seeking asylum. They are coming across seeking a better life. But there is the right way and the wrong way.

Obtaining Asylum in the United States | USCIS

Affirmative Asylum Processing with USCIS

To obtain asylum through the affirmative asylum process you must be physically present in the United States. You may apply for asylum status regardless of how you arrived in the United States or your current immigration status.

You must apply for asylum within one year of the date of their last arrival in the United States, unless you can show:

Changed circumstances that materially affect your eligibility for asylum or extraordinary circumstances relating to the delay in filing
You filed within a reasonable amount of time given those circumstances.
You may apply for affirmative asylum by submitting Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, to USCIS. See Form I 589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal for instructions on how to file for asylum.

If your case is not approved and you do not have a legal immigration status, we will issue a Form I-862, Notice to Appear, and forward (or refer) your case to an Immigration Judge at the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The Immigration Judge conducts a ‘de novo’ hearing of the case. This means that the judge conducts a new hearing and issues a decision that is independent of the decision made by USCIS. If we do not have jurisdiction over your case, the Asylum Office will issue an I-863, Notice of Referral to Immigration Judge, for an asylum-only hearing. See ‘Defensive Asylum Processing With EOIR’ below if this situation applies to you.

Affirmative asylum applicants are rarely detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). You may live in the United States while your application is pending before USCIS. If you are found ineligible, you can remain in the United States while your application is pending with the Immigration Judge. Most asylum applicants are not authorized to work.

Please see the Affirmative Asylum Process for step-by-step information.

Asylum has two basic requirements. First, an asylum applicant must establish that he or she fears persecution in their home country.[4] Second, the applicant must prove that he or she would be persecuted on account of one of five protected grounds: race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or particular social group.[5]

Comparing these two things are the perfect illustration of just how far people will go to defend this morally bankrupt administration. The two aren't even remotely related, but if it justifies your hatred of the brown people by all means, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Let's work out the scenarios.

1) They apply for asylum outside of the US. Agree this is legal
2) They enter the US legally and apply for asylum inside the US. Agree this is legal
3) They enter the US illegally and apply for asylum. I guess applying for asylum is still legal but are they illegal/broken law already when they apply? I think the answer is yes but can be persuaded by others more knowledgeable with the nuances

And calling others names must make you feel warm and fuzzy. Stop with the race card. It is old and tired. You know nothing about me.

Grow up and bring a real argument. Your lack of maturity is frightening and explains your liberal bias.

Sure, dude. Sure.

I will grant you many of the stuff Trump says is made up. However, 11M+ illegal/unauthorized or approx. 3+% of the population is not an "emergency"? Maybe not in an immediate sense but com'on.

What has he done? Definitely brought more awareness and making us confront the problem - the good and bad instead of political kicking the can down the road. Can he do more? Absolutely, I would want a holistic immigration reform in addition to the Wall.


I don't know what this proves other than the Dems/Reps have been effective so far in preventing it. There's no doubt he wants to build it if he can find a way.

I agree its just race baiting. I contend all things held equal that if it was white folks from south of the border it would be the same thing.

No one here championing the poor yellow folks across the ocean or poor black folks from Africa. No equal opportunity for them.

I did not call anyone a name. I suggested they may be those things, but did not directly call them a name.


The oldest trick in the dems book is to call someone racist. When, in fact, the democratic party is extremely racist. What party makes promises to the poor and disenfranchised in the big cities and then does nothing to help them? Why do they lie to those people and hold them down and blame the big bad GOp for their lot in life. Yet do nothing to help them?

Yes, the democratic party is extremely racist.

exactly.

He is comparing migrants seeking asylum from unfathomable conditions with shitty American parents, then using that comparison to justify the inhumane separation of children from their parents, with no organization or plans for how to reunite them.

Yet I'm bringing no argument.

He is failing in epic fashion on his biggest campaign promise, how exactly is that heading in the right direction?

Immigration is at a 20 year low, how is that an emergency? Not to mention we NEED those people. Lazy Mericans aint workin the farms or washing the dishes.

You keep telling yourself that.

Folks, to be fair, you guys are focusing not really focusing on his argument. Most people will agree that what happened to the kids was shameful, I don't see Tarcone advocating it.


So what is the Democrats plan?

Do you disagree that the asylum play is a scam for most?

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

Let me know when you are advocating for same for the yellow and black folks in other countries, many who are in just as desperate straits if not even more so.

This looks a lot to me like advocating it

Wow. What happened to you that you are that dug in on this? Why is it that when we want to protect our nation we are racist.

i agree that if it was a bunch of whites crossing illegally I would be just as against it. But that doesnt fit your narrative, so you dismiss it.

I could care less who enters LEGALLY. Let these central americans go to the nearest embassy and apply for asylum. Im all for it.

But as you can see, the USA does not have to let anyone in. And letting millions in puts more stress on our already crappy social system.

But I guess im racist. I cant wait until you demand that I pay reparations to blacks because I am white. Even though I had nothing to do with slavery.
Or I give my house to native americans because we stole their land.

I answered it best way I know how (might have more ideas but watching GOT rerun right now).



11M, 3% of pop.

Yes, we need legal guest workers working on the farms, washing dishes, building houses etc. Yes, Trump had an opportunity to fix it (his way) in the first 2 years. Yes, Obama had the same opportunity in his first 2 years. Unfortunately, both didn't think they wanted to spend the political capital then.

Don't see it but I'll let him answer (may be surprised).

It doesn't matter in terms of legality. Coming to a port of entry and requesting asylum is legal. The family separation policy effects those families. The people that are held until an immigration judge hears the case are primarily the asylum cases. It was those people that had their kids taken and shipped all over the country, some of which are still separated from their parents/families.

tarcone is equating asylum seekers at a point of entry with border crossers outside of a port of entry, and legally they aren't at all the same thing.

Nope. Not at all. But you do something illegal and you pay the price. I would prefer that these people do it the right way. Why sneak across a border dragging your kids that have no idea what is happening.

Guess what is going to happen? You lose your kids. Sad. Play by the rules and good things happen. Dont play by the rules and bad things happen.

As for the Dem plan, I expect this would still garner a lot of support, but the GOP would continue to oppose it.



And Trump could have had this in 2018, but the whole goal is reduced legal immigration, so he said no.

The dems plan seems to be call out Trump and scare people. Like all their other plans.

I dont think most are seeking asylum. I think they are looking for a better life. I think the dems are using asylum as a way to lie to the masses and get people to believe them.

I dont htink asylum is truly what is happening here.

Right. Because you are there.

It is laughable to say the dems are trying to scare people when literally the only thing that was on FOX news for weeks leading up to the election was the "caravan" headed here. The one that mysteriously disappeared the day after election day.

Let me ask the question in a different way - do you agree that most applying for asylum will not fit the below requirements but apply anyway?

Why are you deliberately ignoring the evidence that you can only apply for asylum in the U.S.?

I have no idea, but even if that's true, coming and requesting asylum is legal.

An embassy in a foreign country is considered territory of said country. This is why Assange lived in the ecaudorian embassy for 5 years in London.

Im sure the USA has an embassy in Mexico and the Central American countries.

Just like you are there. Do not discount what I say when you are in the same boat.

No, immigrants cannot apply for asylum at U.S. embassies or consulates abroad | PolitiFact

So what did the Dems do with the plan, was there a bill proposed or just words to placate the disappointment that was Obama in 2008-2010?

Is there a somewhat unified Dem plan now?

Except I am not questioning the legitimacy of the asylum seekers the way you are.

I think the distinction is that folks can apply for refugee status outside of the country vs asylum.

Maybe they should do that?

No, you are saying they are all seeking asylum. I do not believe this at all.

Respectfully, your refusal to answer a simple question is telling.

In both 2006 and 2013 a bipartisan group of 60 Senators passed an immigration reform bill that the GOP House refused to consider. There have been several opportunities over the past 15 years to pass a compromise bill that almost certainly had majority support in the House, but each time the GOP says no and refuses a vote.

That's because enough GOPers don't want a compromise, they want restrictions on legal immigration.

I'm not at the border. I'm not hearing evidence. Sure, some are and some aren't. Regardless,

REQUESTING ASYLUM AT A US PORT OF ENTRY IS NOT ILLEGAL

Show me where I said all.

I'll wait.

To be fair, I do believe many would fall under asylum, but agree with you, its a scam for the majority.

Was this you?

You need to work on your reading comprehension.

No where in that do I say ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE COMING HERE

But the family separation policy targeted asylum seekers as well as those that crossed outside of a point of entry. You aren't willing to accept that some people that did nothing illegal had their children taken from them.

And crossing the border illegally is a misdemeanor. What other misdemeanor results in your kids being shipped a thousand miles a way?

There are plenty of other opinions you have offered that do not rise to this stated level of rigor.

I'm not stating its illegal of apply for asylum.