TRUMP: Whats the real deal?

[ID Bronco]

The wall is in reality a distraction from getting anything real accomplished.

Most people know that appropriately utilized border barriers is needed and has been in use for decades. Unfortunately Trump made "build that wall" a rally point for his ever-so-important base, along with the false promise Mexico would pay for it, and tied that rally cry into some very unfortunate fear mongering and hate speech against immigrants and minorities that extends well beyond the issue of illegal immigration (let us not forget his condemning "that Mexican judge" who is a US born citizen of Hispanic descent).

Many of us who are rightfully bothered by that aspect of his campaign came to see "The Wall" as a symbol of that hate. In all honesty, I think many of his supporters see it the same way.

If Trump had better political skills and knew when to keep his mouth shut, policies such as expanded and improved border barriers probably could have been easily accomplished.

I don't see the wall like that at all, in fact I never even thought of that until I saw a CNN headline telling me that's what it was. Yesterday I googled a little to see a replay of the President's address to the Nation and the first two pages were all Lib sources that had crazy headlines like what you talked about above. I never did find the video in it's non analyzed state. I gave up pretty quick when I saw the spin being put on it. I don't look at the lock on my neighbors front door and get offended. He's Mexican and he's trying to keep me a white guy out of his house. How dare him. And you know he's keeping every other color/race of person out too, but that's irrelevant, hes racist because I have to ask his permission to get in. Oh, and I just want some food from his fridge so my family and I can better our lives by eating his wife's FANTASTIC tamales. Come to think of it he has a fence he put up between our properties.......what a hater.

Improved Border Barriers......................... I've heard that term somewhere before.

 

[SAMI]

Everyone should watch this. Even if you skip through POTUS when his mouth is moving, listen to those on the ground with decades experience all along the southern boarder. LEO, ranchers, etc. Listen. Facts. These people know better than any of us. This is the crisis that the US has been avoiding for quite some time. It's an hour long, but if you skip through DJT's comments it'll cut it down some.

.....Not a crisis

"Urgent humanitarian problem" -ABC News 2014

"Though we are a Nation of immigrants, we are also a Nation of laws" - Obama 2014

 

[Houndoc]

There is no question the immigration system is a mess. But I stand by my point that we are barking up the wrong tree with the focus on the wall.

Why do we have significant illegal immigration? It is not because people are wanting to steal anything as alluded to above in the locked-door analogy . It is because like most of our own ancestors, people are wanting to come here for a better life and future for their families. However, unlike 100 years ago when someone could show-up on the border, tell someone your name and start a new life (unless of course you were Chinese or other unwelcomed ethnicity), we have placed large road blocks to entry.

Most immigration policies currently in place specifically exclude the types of people who usually resort to illegal entry- lower education, hard working and fleeing poverty and/or violence. When I hear people say 'let them come in, just do it legally' they are ignoring the fact that for most there is not legal option.

Unless you have family already here (the so-called chain-migration Trump is trying to stop, which often involves a 10-20 years to wait), have high-demand job skills and a specific job offer or are lucky enough to be drawn in a limited quota lottery you simply have no legal recourse to immigrate.

So, what happens when there is a product (life in the US) that is in high demand but no legally available? People turn to illegal sources.

If you want to cut down on illegal immigration, reform the legal immigration to allow more people to enter legally. You would then be able to run the background checks and screenings and allow those who are already coming to do so within the system. That would also address the human trafficking and abuse concerns being raised by decreasing demand for their services.

 

[Homefryy]

Unless you have family already here (the so-called chain-migration Trump is trying to stop, which often involves a 10-20 years to wait), have high-demand job skills and a specific job offer or are lucky enough to be drawn in a limited quota lottery you simply have no legal recourse to immigrate.

The funny thing about this is guess who is in the United States because of "chain migration". Melania Trump's parents. Also, guess who originally came here on a tourist visa and worked illegally. Melania Trump.

 

[Jesser04]

There is no question the immigration system is a mess. But I stand by my point that we are barking up the wrong tree with the focus on the wall.

Why do we have significant illegal immigration? It is not because people are wanting to steal anything as alluded to above in the locked-door analogy . It is because like most of our own ancestors, people are wanting to come here for a better life and future for their families. However, unlike 100 years ago when someone could show-up on the border, tell someone your name and start a new life (unless of course you were Chinese or other unwelcomed ethnicity), we have placed large road blocks to entry.

Most immigration policies currently in place specifically exclude the types of people who usually resort to illegal entry- lower education, hard working and fleeing poverty and/or violence. When I hear people say 'let them come in, just do it legally' they are ignoring the fact that for most there is not legal option.

Unless you have family already here (the so-called chain-migration Trump is trying to stop, which often involves a 10-20 years to wait), have high-demand job skills and a specific job offer or are lucky enough to be drawn in a limited quota lottery you simply have no legal recourse to immigrate.

So, what happens when there is a product (life in the US) that is in high demand but no legally available? People turn to illegal sources.

If you want to cut down on illegal immigration, reform the legal immigration to allow more people to enter legally. You would then be able to run the background checks and screenings and allow those who are already coming to do so within the system. That would also address the human trafficking and abuse concerns being raised by decreasing demand for their services.

This all makes perfect sense but not till the wall is built.

The funny thing about this is guess who is in the United States because of "chain migration". Melania Trump's parents. Also, guess who originally came here on a tourist visa and worked illegally. Melania Trump.

You can’t blame someone for taking advantage of a broken system but you can fix it moving forward. Guess what else? Trump more than likely paid next to nothing in taxes. You know how much that bothers me? It doesn’t he did what every person in his position would do.

 

[Noahfecks]

There is no question the immigration system is a mess. But I stand by my point that we are barking up the wrong tree with the focus on the wall.

Why do we have significant illegal immigration? It is not because people are wanting to steal anything as alluded to above in the locked-door analogy . It is because like most of our own ancestors, people are wanting to come here for a better life and future for their families. However, unlike 100 years ago when someone could show-up on the border, tell someone your name and start a new life (unless of course you were Chinese or other unwelcomed ethnicity), we have placed large road blocks to entry.

Most immigration policies currently in place specifically exclude the types of people who usually resort to illegal entry- lower education, hard working and fleeing poverty and/or violence. When I hear people say 'let them come in, just do it legally' they are ignoring the fact that for most there is not legal option.

Unless you have family already here (the so-called chain-migration Trump is trying to stop, which often involves a 10-20 years to wait), have high-demand job skills and a specific job offer or are lucky enough to be drawn in a limited quota lottery you simply have no legal recourse to immigrate.

So, what happens when there is a product (life in the US) that is in high demand but no legally available? People turn to illegal sources.

If you want to cut down on illegal immigration, reform the legal immigration to allow more people to enter legally. You would then be able to run the background checks and screenings and allow those who are already coming to do so within the system. That would also address the human trafficking and abuse concerns being raised by decreasing demand for their services.

You keep claiming that there is no legal option to immigrate here and then make contradictory statements.

Is it a lottery system or is it a system that has specific criteria? If it's a lottery everyone has the same chance at a legal option. If it's specific criteria and targeted at skills then go get the skills. Either way those coming across are doing so because they would rather break the law than work to earn their way in legitimately.

You keep claiming we need to let more in, how many is enough because apparently you don't think the 1MM we let in annually is enough? By your logic we should let every single one who shows up at our door in because the only way to stop them from coming illegally is to "allow more people to enter legally". Who rescues us when the system is overwhelmed and collapses? How much worse is it when there is no aid in their countries of origin and no where to run?

My personal experience and observation of chain migration is dramatically different than your claim of 10-20 years, more like 10-20 months, for each cycle.

Comparing early immigration to current immigration is apples to oranges, and pretending that the US didn't turn away immigrants in droves "back when" is not factually accurate. We held to our quotas and standards then and people recognized and respected our rules.

 

[Noahfecks]

I love how I keep hearing the claim that we don't need a physical barrier between entry stations sporting beefed up security. You know who else thought that? The french, ever hear of the Maginot line? An invading force will never think to go around secured areas

 

[Pike2350]

You keep claiming that there is no legal option to immigrate here and then make contradictory statements.

Is it a lottery system or is it a system that has specific criteria? If it's a lottery everyone has the same chance at a legal option. If it's specific criteria and targeted at skills then go get the skills. Either way those coming across are doing so because they would rather break the law than work to earn their way in legitimately.

You keep claiming we need to let more in, how many is enough because apparently you don't think the 1MM we let in annually is enough? By your logic we should let every single one who shows up at our door in because the only way to stop them from coming illegally is to "allow more people to enter legally". Who rescues us when the system is overwhelmed and collapses? How much worse is it when there is no aid in their countries of origin and no where to run?

My personal experience and observation of chain migration is dramatically different than your claim of 10-20 years, more like 10-20 months, for each cycle.

Comparing early immigration to current immigration is apples to oranges, and pretending that the US didn't turn away immigrants in droves "back when" is not factually accurate. We held to our quotas and standards then and people recognized and respected our rules.

I think your reading into his comment a little too literaly.
No as in very little chance. The immigration system had both options, but there's many more legal openings for those that are skilled...and much fewer for lottery.

Many of these immigrants face horrible conditions back home. They are desparate.... aand see the risk of coming get illegal much better than "waiting" for the lottery. I like your comment about "go get the skills" you do realize that is not even remotely an option for 99% of the people trying to come here right?

While we need some form of barrier, and major immigration overhaul... i think the focus on the wall is to avoid what the real problem is. We have a system that supports far too many people.....citizen or not. Personally, i'd take 1M illegal citizens that will work the crappy manual labor jobs than 1M American citizens that game the system and live off tax payer $. That is the big problem. Limit the handouts and entitlements and the immigration debate becomes much less of a divisive issue.... because, even if they come here, they aren't "overwhelming" or taking advantage of the system.

I also like how people bitch about immigrants ...but wont really pay the price for American most of the time. We want our cake and to eat it too. We can't have low cost AND American labor in many of the jobs that illegals do. You can argue all you want... ...but many employers won't find citizens to clean toilets, pick veggies in the field, do A LOT of the manual labor immigrants do without having to increase wages (even those not paid under the table)... which raises prices.....we Americans won't stand for that

 

[Jesser04]

@Pike2350 @Houndoc you both have valid arguments and I believe 9-10 trump supporters agree with you The part where we stop agreeing is that fixing immigration will curb illegal border crossing. We need a barrier and we need immigration reform but we can have reform without a wall. We have a boat with a hole in it and we can put all the bilge pumps we want in it but it’s not fixing the problem. For the record trump supporters don’t give a damn who pays for the wall just build it.

 

[Houndoc]

You keep claiming that there is no legal option to immigrate here and then make contradictory statements.

Is it a lottery system or is it a system that has specific criteria? If it's a lottery everyone has the same chance at a legal option. If it's specific criteria and targeted at skills then go get the skills. Either way those coming across are doing so because they would rather break the law than work to earn their way in legitimately.

You keep claiming we need to let more in, how many is enough because apparently you don't think the 1MM we let in annually is enough? By your logic we should let every single one who shows up at our door in because the only way to stop them from coming illegally is to "allow more people to enter legally". Who rescues us when the system is overwhelmed and collapses? How much worse is it when there is no aid in their countries of origin and no where to run?

My personal experience and observation of chain migration is dramatically different than your claim of 10-20 years, more like 10-20 months, for each cycle.

Comparing early immigration to current immigration is apples to oranges, and pretending that the US didn't turn away immigrants in droves "back when" is not factually accurate. We held to our quotas and standards then and people recognized and respected our rules.

On chain migration, I don't know what your personal experience is, but when we looked into starting the process for my wife's siblings the wait time for them to be able to apply for a green card was 20 years. Keep in mind that is 20 years after we start the process, which requires her to become a US citizen first (a 3-5 year wait from when becoming a permanent resident.) We never bothered.

Why is comparing early immigration to now an unfair comparison? Other than your family already being here, what is the justification for a change?

As to the number of immigrants allowed, I have never seen any factual information to determine how many is too many. I doubt such a number could ever be determined.

But what we do know is that 1) US birthrate is not high enough to sustain current population 2) aging work force as baby boomers retire will leave fewer workers to support the economy government and retired workers 3) there are more job openings than unemployed workers.

It is also interesting to note that from 1860-2018 the percent of people in the US that are foreign-born has varied from a high of 15% in late 1800s to a low of about 5% in 1970. The current 13% is higher than what many of us may remember in our life-times but is certainly not outside historic norms.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time

 

[Houndoc]

I honestly do not understand the argument that we can not deal with immigration reform until the border "is secure". Makes no sense to me at all.

It is safe to say that a majority of those who cross illegaly would prefer to come legally. So improving that process helps 'secure the border'. Plus the simple reality is that no border is ever going to be 100% secure. That doesn't mean when don't keep working to improve it, but we can't hold everything else hostage to a poorly defined, impossible goal.

 

[Houndoc]

Final clarification for today.
On the lottery system, in most countries the chances of an individual being selected is very slim- numbers allowed are low and Trump is pushing to make them even lower. So in real, practical terms most people who want to immigrate have very limited legal options.

 

[Jesser04]

I honestly do not understand the argument that we can not deal with immigration reform until the border "is secure". Makes no sense to me at all.

It is safe to say that a majority of those who cross illegaly would prefer to come legally. So improving that process helps 'secure the border'. Plus the simple reality is that no border is ever going to be 100% secure. That doesn't mean when don't keep working to improve it, but we can't hold everything else hostage to a poorly defined, impossible goal.

The only way to stop illegal immigration without a barrier is to let anyone and everyone in. As long as there is a cap on immigration on our southern border there will be illegal immigration. IMHO as a trump supporter.

 

[Houndoc]

The only way to stop illegal immigration without a barrier is to let anyone and everyone in. As long as there is a cap on immigration on our southern border there will be illegal immigration. IMHO as a trump supporter.

Exactly why immigration reform and border security need to be dealt with as a package.
One (immigration reform) decreases demand, the other (border security) lessens oportunity.

 

[UT410]

I asked my wife, a couple nights ago, "What would be the larger barrier to entry, illegal entry or the legal way?"

As someone who sees and represents both parties, she couldn't come up with a quick answer. No one single situation defines each group there are good and bad folks in either process.

People whom are able to apply and wait 10+ years are, most times, in positions that allow for that. That doesn't mean they're all the greatest, smartest, etc.

If anything the US has mucked up the process with all sorts of politics/relationships/etc.

Many of those whom come illegally face the worst treatment imaginable. They go through robbery, rape, harassment, separation (both unwilling and willing), they're looked down on for leaving and looked at worse for being sent back. I mean that's the short list of things I know of... I'm sure there's more.

Why go through all those risks? Why would you leave your country and head to one where the only ones that want you are the ones who'll profit from you? Why go to a place where the stigma is that you're a piece of trash? These folks aren't living the dream, here. I've known a couple different generations of immigrants who've come into the states illegally (not just from Mexico) and many times these folks are treated as some class less than human.

Finally, I asked her, what solution would have real impact on illegal immigration. After a little hesitation, she said "removing birthright citizenship."

The wall, the grandstanding, the logical fallacies, they're all a misdirect... a huge waste of time so we don't have to face the far bigger issues.

 

[Noahfecks]

On chain migration, I don't know what your personal experience is, but when we looked into starting the process for my wife's siblings the wait time for them to be able to apply for a green card was 20 years. Keep in mind that is 20 years after we start the process, which requires her to become a US citizen first (a 3-5 year wait from when becoming a permanent resident.) We never bothered.

Why is comparing early immigration to now an unfair comparison? Other than your family already being here, what is the justification for a change?

As to the number of immigrants allowed, I have never seen any factual information to determine how many is too many. I doubt such a number could ever be determined.

But what we do know is that 1) US birthrate is not high enough to sustain current population 2) aging work force as baby boomers retire will leave fewer workers to support the economy government and retired workers 3) there are more job openings than unemployed workers.

It is also interesting to note that from 1860-2018 the percent of people in the US that are foreign-born has varied from a high of 15% in late 1800s to a low of about 5% in 1970. The current 13% is higher than what many of us may remember in our life-times but is certainly not outside historic norms.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/immigrant-population-over-time

Well for starters it's an unfair comparison because you are comparing LEGAL immigration to ILLEGAL immigration. For the record a fairly significant portion of my family was always here, others came not of their own free will, and the rest came here LEGALLY.

Not sure I understand your red herring about the declining birthrate, less people and more jobs is a good thing.

Again the portion of foreign born is a red herring, do you have statistics about the percentages of illegals over history? My gut tells me it's at an all time high.

 

[UT410]

Again the portion of foreign born is a red herring, do you have statistics about the percentages of illegals over history? My gut tells me it's at an all time high.

Since 2007 the numbers of people coming from Mexico has steadily declined.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/fact-check-trump-border-crossings-declining-.html

My feeling about a lot of things is that hammering us over the head with rhetoric is at an all time high.

 

[Noahfecks]

So what are the top solutions on the border?

1- Ending birthright citizenship - Trump should do it immediately by executive order, after all it's not based on law but rather administrative action
2- Stop illegal crossings - The D's have been promising to do so since before Reagan signed the first amnesty and have never made good on their half of the compromise. A physical barrier is part of that
3- create a tracking system for those that come legally and stay beyond their welcome, actually enforce it

The big one is fixing central America, don't know how you do that. The corruption is beyond out of control and the cartels run things, legalizing drugs would help but would create problems here. As a kid I remember everything had a "made in mexico" sticker on it, those have been replaced by "made in china" stickers. How do the central American countries become competitive again?

 

[Noahfecks]

Since 2007 the numbers of people coming from Mexico has steadily declined.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/11/28/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/fact-check-trump-border-crossings-declining-.html

My feeling about a lot of things is that hammering us over the head with rhetoric is at an all time high.

after reading the methodology of the PEW research article, the highly touted "decline in illegal residents" falls inside the margin of statistical and methodology error. So we may have seen a decline, we may have seen an increase, or we may have stayed the same.

 

[Stephen]

Not sure I understand your red herring about the declining birthrate, less people and more jobs is a good thing.

Less people means less demand for goods and services. That means fewer jobs and a less competitive economy. Part of the reason that the US has traditionally been competitive has been that our population is always growing at a steady rate. As the birthrate among the native born population has decreased since the latter half of the 20th century, we have relied on immigrants to prop those numbers up.