And as many others have already pointed out upthread, the Dems were already willing to negotiate and provide $25B for the pointless wall to secure a DACA deal but as pointed out again and again the R’s said no thanks due to the Rush Limbaugh, Fox News influence (“amnesty”) which we all know is a real thing when it comes to influencing Trump and his base (see: current Trump shutdown).

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/15/u...-dreamers.html

At least Social Security. Take out a few million tax payers who won't see benefits and see what happens.

Farms are already dying out at a rapid rate :)

Row crop farming wouldn't be affected all that much. I always thought vegans would be a good ally for the anti-immigration crowd. Animal agriculture would be hurt the most. Immigrants are involved in all stages of the animal/meat cycle. As Americans, we love our meat but we don't want to get dirty raising it or killing it and cutting it up. I can't say I'd want a job where I was cutting cattle throats all day either.

There's been more automation in the last decade but you still need warm bodies when you are dealing with other warm bodies of other species.

Nope, certainly not about invidividuals. If there is a country like Mexico who citizens takes up 54% (of 10-11M+) of unauthorized immigrants, that's an invasion.


Specifically on "overstays", I don't know how to utilize the metric that has been tossed around because what I read says the "overstays" statistics is only for those that come by air-and-sea, not land/border crossing. If someone has good analysis on what this means in context of total unauthorized immigration, that would be welcome.

Specific to your question, I googled but not able to find "Annual unauthorized immigration by country/region". If you can find a report, please share it. It is fact that unauthorized border crossing have been reduced, but there is that statistic of about 310K unauthorized south of the border or about 870 per day.


Lets agree to disagree re: problem is largely resolved itself w/border crossings (and current unauthorized pop in the country).


No doubt Trump is an ass.

I will say again there are others and me on this board that are not 100% supportive of Trump. Just because we agree on some policies does not make just me a one-dimensional Trump supporter.


Definitely agree.


The Border patrol folks may agree with more people and technology, but they also believe in the wall.



You know, I'm not sure I buy this. There's only so much the US can do and I think the original NAFTA helped alot. Re: Mexico and the 54%, a trend that started long before Trump, what is it you think the US should take responsibility for?

I'll take your 20 years and counter the GOP dosen't want to do immigration reform seriously with below. And what did Obama do for immigration reform his first 2 years when Dems owned Congress?

Immigration reform in the United States - Wikipedia

However, I will agree that in general, the GOP is "tougher" on immigration reform than Dems.


My gut tells me this is probably true but I've honestly haven't read any analysis on this. If you have a source beyond commentary on this thread, please provide it


If you have a statistic that shows visa overstays and how long they really overstay by country, that would be interesting. Because visa overstay statistics that I've found says its only factoring air-and-sea, not ground crossing. TBH, there doesn't seem to be good data to slice-and-dice this data but I may be wrong.

BTW, from my research, only 3 of the 19 were overstays.


Based on your answer, I assume you do believe there is a problem but the wall isn't the solution.

I absolutely agree the demand, supply problem also needs to be part of the solution.


I like the idea but TBH, but deep down, I don't think it'll ever be enough (at least in the short term < 10 years). I'm sure it'll help but will it be near enough, doubt it. I believe you need to have a non-porous border.

The problem I see with this statement is that the powers that be include these numbers in their statistics as to try to convince people that a wall is necessary and will be effective. So if they're being honest they should take these numbers out and then sell it to the people with honest stats of what's really happening. They don't because it's more about "I promised it so we must do it" although the 'Mexico paying for it part' seems to have been just exaggerated. I wonder how Trump wall fans discern a true promise versus an exaggeration that they never expected anyways. Is there an app that does that?

Mexicans doing work that US citizens won't do is definitely a good thing and they are welcome if they come legally.

If the immigration laws need to be reworked, let's do it (e.g. increase renewable, guest worker program). Unfortunately, because of the state of our Congress, it probably won't happen anytime soon. Yes, Trump is a problem here, but its not as if Obama got much done either.

Would have to do it in phases or have a process to convert/apply to "guest worker" visa.

So in the meantime spend billions on a wall that won't work anyway?

And if it does work those Mexicans stop coming.

Lets also not forget Trump is talking about closing the border, so NO Mexican labor would come in. Legally or not.

If people on the ground say they want it because it will help (and supposedly they would know best on the tactical vs strategic/policy matter because they deal with it daily), why not believe them?

Regarding closing the border, can't support and respond to every crazy thing Trump says.

Because that quote is a bit disingenuous.

They said certain strategic locations. Unless we know those locations, how far they stretch, etc...it is a bit meaningless. For all we know they are talking about a 50 mile zone that has unusually high activity.

Fair enough.

But they are saying build something. They are definitely not saying "it won't work".

I think this 4-star General sums it up perfectly, “"What I would ask every American to do is again, stand in front of that mirror and say, what are we about?," he continued. "Am I really willing to throw away or ignore some of the things that people do that are pretty unacceptable normally just because they accomplish certain other things that we might like. If we want to be governed by someone we wouldn't do a business deal with because they're their background is so shady, if we're willing to do that then that's in conflict with who I think we are."

Retired 4-Star General Stanley McChrystal Says He Wouldn't Work For 'Shady' Donald Trump | HuffPost

Bush tries immigration reform later. It passed the Senate with bi[artisan support and would have passed the House, but a faction of the GOP demanded that any bill get a majority of GOP support and they kept it from getting a vote.

For about the millionth time, there has been a bipartisan majority that could pass immigration reform, but a faction of the GOP has kept that from happening.

That's the Hastert rule, named for the pervert Speaker who started it

I see the distinction you are making now. Its not GOP but a faction within the GOP. This is a fair statement.

Why don't you think Obama passed a immigration bill to address all/most of this stuff when the Dems had Congress when first elected?

I am sure the GR took top priority (and Obamacare took 2nd) which is great but here's an example of Dems being able to get something done on immigration but punted.

FWIW, the somewhat answer to my question re: Obama and his failure to do immigration reform when he had the chance.

My point is many here blame the GOP for lack of immigration reform which is deserved. They failed to act/compromise when they could have. However, the blame is shared by the Dems, its not just one-sided.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...=.802914f07225

Obama was too committed to a bipartisan fantasy world when McConnell was set on saying no to everything.

At this point I'm not sure there's a majority in Congress for any bill. Some of those that led the effort on the GOP side are now firmly in Trump's camp(Graham, Rubio, etc.).

Unfortunately, you are probably right but I am still hopeful. Give Trump his $25B for the "full" Wall in exchange for everything else. But the Dems won't want to do this before 2020 because it'll give Trump his "win". So my guess is 2020+ either in Trump's 2nd term or new Dem president.

But really was there an "immigration crisis" out there until Trump started talking about his Wall? I mean there were certainly reforms that needed to be done, but not as importaint as universal health care?

Universal health care doesn’t strike fear into votes like an invasion by brown people does.

Uh, they offered 25 bil for the wall in exchange for a DACA fix, but Stephen Miller and the White House said no. You're right that they aren't offering that deal again now that they have more power.

The Dems certainly could have gotten something done from '09-'11 when they had control. But it was also peak unemployment during the recession. Immigration probably isn't the smartest program to get done, politically speaking, when unemployment is high. Granted, they ended up taking a bloodbath in 2010 anyway. The time to get immigration reform done is when unemployment is low. Like right now. Unfortunately, the person sitting in the oval office will scuttle that as his idea of immigration reform will never build a strong enough coalition in Congress to get it passed.

Three things to add to that.

1) They had senators from "red" states in the coalition, which means it was hardly a case of "unified liberal caucus could have done it why didn't they do it?"

2) When you have 65 Senators, you can clear the filibuster threshold even if someone grandstands. When you have 60 Senators, the 60th Senator has immense power, and will use that power to get as much for his or her state as possible in exchange for that 60th vote. We saw that with Ben Nelson and Nebraska when the Senate was trying to pass ACA.

3) Republicans/conservatives act as though Democrats both had a unified liberal caucus (they didn't) and 60 votes continuously from January '09 through January '11. Coleman held up Minnesota's Senate seat in litigation for months before finally conceding, and then Kennedy had his cancer battle. He returned to the Senate to cast his vote on ACA, because that was his pet issue, but I'm not sure he would have done for an immigration bill even if one had been on the floor and passable.

Rudy G challenged Mueller to a duel...or something like that:


Rudy Giuliani‏Verified account @RudyGiuliani









I challenge Mueller to put up or shut up. You have no evidence of the President being involved in a conspiracy with anyone including Russia to hack. And you also have no evidence of collusion. It’s been 2 years so submit a report to DOJ and we will answer it.

Yes. As has been pointed out in the thread, there's actually somewhat less of one than there used to be, but it's definitely been there long before Trump's campaign/presidency. As someone who thinks universal health care is a good thing and quite important, I'd say it pales in comparison to the immigration issue. Not because of 'brown people' etc., but because any nation, to even deserve the name, needs to control its borders and have an enforceable line where their nation ends/another begins, etc. The United States doesn't have that, and hasn't had it for at least a matter of decades.

I also agree there was a crisis pre-Trump. I'm also for universal healthcare (baseline + private) and would put it before immigration reform. Although I do believe what you said, I'll take the then 40M uninsured/underinsured then over the 10-11M undocumented as a more pressing issue.

I'm not sure what to think of this yet.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/31/polit...020/index.html

Nope. Not interested.

President twitter thumbs is rather unhinged this morning.

I like her but I think she has between a 1/64 and 1/1028 chance of winning a general election

I guess we've never been a nation, then.

But there have been almost no nations the entire history of the Earth, so that makes it a little more understandable.

Wanted to see % undocumented by country and was only able to find this as of 2010. There's disclaimer that methodologies are not the same and Greece and Russia really has some wonky numbers. Russia dropped 4.5% in one year so that is suspect, Green gained and lost 1.5%+ couple separate years too (before the Syrian war).

Excluding those 2 irregularities, the US pretty much lead the list consistently.

Illegal Immigration around the World: 13 Countries Compared to the United States - Illegal Immigration - ProCon.org

Wait, what?! Aside from this massive recession and trying to pass universal healthcare, why didn't they also undertake this other massive thing? Do you understand how Congress works? It basically took all of Obama's political capital to get the ACA passed and even that was just barely (and without a public option).

It's a ridiculous charge even if it was a priority for the Obama administration when he came in anyways (which it wasn't - immigration wasn't a big issue in either campaign in 2008).

Those are mostly EU countries that have freedom of movement. Brexit was largely driven by a get out the foreigners sentiment, but almost all of them were there legally.

If you look at % of population foreign born, which also has it's limitations, the U.S. is right in line or lower than most of the west.

John F. Kelly says his tenure as Trump's chief of staff is best measured by what the president did not do - Los Angeles Times

I assume the % of foreign born means "legal" vs "illegal". Brian's comment was in reference to illegal. So this does seem to be the most appropriate chart (albeit, pretty outdated and suspect).

Prior to the 1970s, the US really didn't bother with border security. That's why the charts show near zero apprehensions from the 1960s and before. Because they simply didn't bother with it. So by your standard, the US would be more of a nation now than a few decades ago.

Per the WP quote above -


It may not "really have been a priority" for Obama but he sure made it sound that way.

It was sooo hard for him. Almost not worth the effort, but at least he got to lock some kids in cages and lie about a black woman.

And then ACA became far more complicated to get through (and Obama, of course, tried to get his immigration reform policies through using executive order later after the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act failed to get through the House in 2013). Not nearly a priority as Healthcare and the Economy. And it took him a while, but he did get a bill ready to vote on by 2013.

Foreign born is both.

Brian said:


In the EU, in terms of immigration, there is no line where one ends and another begins. That's why the British right was so angry. I don't see how it being legal changes the underlying argument about immigration control.

Agreed. But by 2013, he lost the ability to push it through, a missed opportunity in his first 2 years.

If voters were willing to vote for Trump because they were so afraid of Hillary, I can't even imagine what they'd be willing to do if Warren was the nominee.

The economy and healthcare were far more important concerns. If anything the Senate is probably more to blame for dragging its feet during the ACA, preventing anything else major from being taken up.

You're responding as if this were a matter of policy.

Narrator voice: It is not a matter of policy

Hope they dont run her, Sanders, or Biden. Anyone else should have a solid chance of winning. Those three unfortunately 4 more years of trump.

One of the underrated fun things to watch over the next couple of years will be the GOP responding to AOC. The current thinking right now is that she must have been secretly rich. She is

A woman
of color
who grew up working class
but managed to succeed anyway

And they just can't handle her existence. "When we said that we are the party of opportunity and hard-work, we didn't mean for those people."

I just don't find her charismatic at all. She is going to be a tough sell outside of the north east/west coast.

Just saw a Brooking report on population growth and the U.S. is at an eighty year low, just .62 percent. We're following too many demographic trends from Russia.