Donald Trump Running for President

[russ_watters]

OK, This is a lot, let me address a few and the rest later.

Please do not make me ask you this question again, for a fourth time:

In my previous post, I asked you why you find that relevant. Please answer.

 

[WWGD]

But as pointed-out, that isn't the "whole" of the immigration issue and you are ignoring known downsides by downplaying them to nothingness. There are about half a dozen separate issues in immigration, so this claim of yours that that one aspect makes the whole issue win-win is, frankly, bizarre.

What? By definition, isn't that the only way to enter/exit a country?

mheslep provided statistics for you, to which you responded:

1. There is no other way to enter but through the border.

2. Illegal and legal immigrants committing crimes (beyond the crime of entering illegally) can be regarded as separate issues, with potentially separate solutions. My short position is that our prisons should not contain any non-citizen, non-permanent resident immigrants: they should be deported. But I'm not sure if mheslep's statistics slice that.

Why do you find it relevant?

It doesn't sound to me like you are suggesting wiggle room, but please specify what wiggle room, exactly, you see?

In my previous post, I asked you why you find that relevant. Please answer.

Are you referring to the fact that the net inflow is negative? If so, the issue Trump is making about Mexicans illegally crossing becomes a nonissue unless there is good reason to believe that both a high amount and a high proportion of those crossing are committing crimes. I am suggesting that, as a whole, having people cross the border illegally benefits both sides, providing jobs for Mexicans and workers for employers in need. This is what I mean by a win-win.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you referring to the fact that the net inflow is negative?

Yes; Four.

 

[WWGD]

Well, then Trump's claim of Mexican's arriving here illegally is a non-issue because, as a whole, they are leaving instead of arriving in-mass as Trump claims. This is why it is relevant, Trump is making a non-issue into an issue.

 

[TurtleMeister]

I don't think I've seen this mentioned, but it's a long thread and I could have missed it. Could much of Trump's support be coming from older white Americans who fear that their race will become extinct in this country? It seems to make since considering the current immigration and birth rate demographics. I came across this opinion piece in the Washington Post: Stop laughing at Donald Trump, which lead me to think that this may be what's happening. Could the "silent majority", as it is referred to in the article, be enough to get Trump elected?

 

[russ_watters]

Well, then Trump's claim of Mexican's arriving here illegally is a non-issue because, as a whole, they are leaving instead of arriving in-mass as Trump claims. This is why it is relevant, Trump is making a non-issue into an issue.

Huh? If 10 people arrive illegally and 11 people leave legally, you still had 10 people arrive illegally (by the way: the factoid actually didn't even differentiate between legal and illegal). The net flow does not negate the fact that people arrived illegally and something should be done about it. I see no relevance whatsoever for this factoid.

If 10 people commit theft but a different 11 people do not commit theft, does that mean we don't need to enforce theft laws? Of course not: The two facts have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

WWGD, you come into this issue with guns blazing and I don't think you're really paying attention to the issues (as noted last week, you aren't paying attention to what others are saying, but rather are just arguing with yourself a lot of the time), but rather just throwing out random, not necessarily relevant factoids to overwhelm the discussion. I don't understand why, but I do see what you are thinking:

Why is this never mentioned by Trump and those denouncing illegal immigrants?...

My goal is to bring this issue into the discussion.

I don't think you understand why this discussion is happening. People (politicians) discuss problems because problems need to be fixed. They don't discuss the benefits of a situation because benefits do not need to be fixed. Indeed, the fact that a person lists problems related to illegal immigration does not mean they do not recognize the benefits of immigration as a whole, it just means they want the problems fixed. So by focusing on benefits - many of which are not being questioned - you are totally ignoring the point of the discussion!

Some specifics:

If so, the issue Trump is making about Mexicans illegally crossing becomes a nonissue unless there is good reason to believe that both a high amount and a high proportion of those crossing are committing crimes.

Quite clearly, exactly 100% of people crossing illegally are committing a crime. If you are saying you want to decriminalize illegal immigration, that's a big change (note: that's you arguing to change the status quo/fix something you see as a "problem").

If you lived in a war zone, would you wait for many years to go through the official channels, or would you do whatever it takes to survive? If someone tries to cross the border illegally running away from a murder rate of 677 per 6 million in El Salvador (this is in June 2015 alone. See last Time magazine for a source), are they criminals?

Yes, as a matter of law, quite clearly someone who crosses the border illegally has committed a crime: they are a criminal. That you (or I) take pity on them for their situation is a separate issue. If you want to streamline asylum hearings/applications, that would probably be fine with me, but you cannot say that someone who has broken a law has not done something illegal. That's an at-face-value self-contradiction.

This bears repeating:

Blanket apologetics for the status quo are the reason a showman like Trump gains center stage in my opinion. The apologists dismiss all bad aspects of illegal immigration. Objective observation of some harm is met with condescension and labeled as attack of the proletariat on the poor and defenseless.

Trump is a blowhard, but that doesn't make blowhard responses to him OK. There are real issues here that many people believe should be addressed (even some you agree should be addressed, WWGD, even if you gloss-over them).

 

[Bystander]

Could the "silent majority", as it is referred to in the article, be enough to get Trump elected?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority
"The Silent Majority" as defined by Wiki, if taken in the "modern" context (Nixon's appeal/interpretation to/of an electoral mandate) probably does not exist, and has probably never existed. More broadly, the notion that the "spirit of the founding fathers" is resident in some "silent majority," and will express itself in some sort of "take charge/return to responsible/responsive government" movement is unlikely. No electorate with as long a record of non-participation as that of the current population of the U. S. is going to have the sense to distinguish the differences among the scoundrels currently seeking office (Trump et al) and a very unlikely possibility of competent leadership emerging, much less unite in support of such an alternative choice.

 

[DiracPool]

Illegals are by definition breaking US laws

This is the issue I have with the whole immigration debate. I don't like the fact that there are laws on the books that don't get enforced. It just looks bad. If the policy is that you can't enter the US legally by sneaking across the border, but that if you get away with it then you're OK, then write that into the law. Don't be a hypocrite and grant the border runners amnesty every decade or so. The law is the law, if you pick and choose which laws you enforce, then you make a mockery of your whole system; you set an example that any given citizen can also pick and choose which laws they want to adhere to and which they don't.

This isn't to say I support Trump's "8 point policy." I didn't read it. But I think it amounts to something like rounding up a good number of the illegal immigrants or "undocumented workers" as the euphemism goes, and sending their whole families back to Mexico/South America. I don't necessarily support that. Just make a decision on what you want the immigration policy to be, and then enforce those laws. That's it. And plus, call it what it is. Anyone who enters the United States illegally is an illegal alien, not an "undocumented worker." Well, they are undocumented workers too, I guess, if they're working. But they could also be an undocumented criminal. When I see people/organizations on news programs who use these euphemisms, it just smells of some kind of political deceit and in my mind makes their character less credible. Why? Because you rarely hear these organizations referring to illegal border crossers as potentially undocumented criminals. They are always undocumented "workers." Lol. "Undocumented workers," what's that supposed to mean? That's funny. They're undocumented only because they are illegal immigrants. Call it what it is.

 

[Finny]

Could the "silent majority", as it is referred to in the article, be enough to get Trump elected?

I think maybe so, but not for the reasons you state. You don't want to pay too much attention to most articles from elitist academia.

Pew surveys also must be taken with great care. Ask "Are there too many Mexicans being allowed in the US." I'd guess most would say 'yes' ; Ask "Are there too many Mexicans being legally admitted to the US" and I doubt most people care. Ask "Would you like more Asian immigrants?" you likely get one set of answers, ask "Would you like more Asian PHD's admitted who will start new companies and create high tech jobs." and I bet you get a very different answer.

The 'silent majority', as you put it, is fed up with lawlessness, not with the race,religion,color nor creed of illegals, despite mass media claims. I live in a township that used to be full of [primarily] white Americans, now 'older white Americans', and it is now growing due to an increasing proportion of Asians, Indians, and Muslims from various countries. Of those I know, some are Sikhs, some Hindu, nobody really cares.

I think there IS an underlying concern regarding mosques and the possibility of radical extremism of a few. But that has nothing to do with individuals nor their origins, it has to do with violence and religious intolerance of groups like ISIS.

One thing I never understood, is why we don't have an official language in the US. It's good for everybody. So everybody can communicate. I spoke with a local Indian yesterday: Guy grew up here but speaks five languages, including Hindi, excellent English, and Punjabi...his families home state. So I looked up languages in India. Turns out Wikipedia says Hindi and English are the official languages used by the Central Government...seems like there are at least 29 with a million or more as first language. Mention English as an official language here and liberals go nuts and call you racist. I'd like to see Trump bring up English as the official language.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

English is technically the official language, if you want a good paying job or education for that matter. Multiple languages are great. It is surprising that In other nations people at least know 2 languages. Three language is becoming the norm.

 

[phinds]

English is technically the official language, if you want a good paying job or education for that matter. Multiple languages are great. It is surprising that In other nations people at least know 2 languages. Three language is becoming the norm.

Other countries are not isolationist the way the US historically is. We have been so powerful that we can ignore the rest of the world for the most part (absent major events like Hitler) but other countries live cheek by jowl with lots of other countries so I disagree that it is surprising that people there know more than one language.

EDIT: Hm ... that's really not a good way for me phrase that. I don't get to decide what you find surprising. I should just say, I don't find it surprising at all, for the reasons I stated.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

Other countries are not isolationist the way the US historically is. We have been so powerful that we can ignore the rest of the world for the most part (absent major events like Hitler) but other countries live cheek by jowl with lots of other countries so I disagree that it is surprising that people there know more than one language.

I did not want to derail the tread talking about Us world presence. Imperialism for short.

 

[Astronuc]

Trump attracted more than 30000 to a rally in Mobile, Alabama.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-are-white-evangelicals-supporting-trump-it-127261597616.html

Ever since a mid-July Washington Post poll confirmed that Trump is the leading candidate among white evangelical Republicans (20 percent supported him at the time, compared to 14, 12 and 11 percent for Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee and Jeb Bush, respectively), political observers have been trying to sort out the puzzle of conservative evangelical support for Trump.

It will make for an interesting campaign season in 2016.

 

[lisab]

Trump attracted more than 30000 to a rally in Mobile, Alabama.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-are-white-evangelicals-supporting-trump-it-127261597616.html

It will make for an interesting campaign season in 2016.

We do live in interesting times, don't we. Les sighs.

 

[TurtleMeister]

I think maybe so, but not for the reasons you state. You don't want to pay too much attention to most articles from elitist academia.

I do not align myself with the left wing agenda of elite academia, but I do pay attention to what they say.

(All things stated in this post are personal opinion.)

Another reason I think Trump is seeing such popularity is that people are fed up with the status quo in politics and government. Older people have experienced the downward spiral of the American dream, which at this point no longer even exists. Being a child of the 50's and 60's, I remember a time when the children in the family could grow up, get an education, get a career and a home, and then help support their parents in their old age. Now the children grow up, get an education, and then, because they cannot find work that will pay the rent, they come back home to live with their parents, who are being supported by their savings and/or the government. The gap between the rich and poor is widening. The middle class (the backbone of America) is disappearing.

I think that some people who support Trump don't actually like him. He is after all an arrogant bully. A Trump presidency could be risky. But I think to many Americans, especially older Americans, the consequences of the country continuing on the path it is on warrants taking some risks. And even if Trump could accomplish nothing (probably the best we could hope for), it would send a strong message to future candidates. But for right now, Trump is all they have. Could it be that the "silent" majority have finally found a voice?

 

[Rintintin]

What people outside of the US don't realize is that the current group of Republicans are so afraid of not getting reelected that they will never take anything but a politically correct stand.

I'm outside the U.S. but honestly I get the opposite impression. It seems to me like some of these folks are basically "out to offend" (which isn't the same as being honest!). Maybe it's just that candidates like Donald Trump, Tom Tancredo or David Duke create so much controversy that they stand out more than other less offensive candidates.

Just for the record, I consider myself center-right for most purposes (actually, in the country I live in I've been labeled as far-right due to the huge shift to the left that we have here).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I support controlled borders (anyone crossing should be screened and fingerprinted, provided their background's clean), tough prison sentences, and the death penalty for heinous offenses (you would probably vote for me LOL) but I could never support a candidate that tries to associate a particular ethnicity or culture with crime/sexual depravity and basically says they're "not like you or me." Those are dangerous ideas.

And I do believe in free speech (f.e.I don't believe in jailing people for denying the Holocaust) but that doesn't negate that most of the people denying it have dangerous ideas.

He could have easily said that there are a MINORITY of border crossers who are criminals in their home country (which is much, much closer to the truth hence more honest) and that we need to stop them from entering and harming law-abiding people, citizens and immigrants alike. He could have also added that the economy right now cannot support an unlimited influx of unskilled laborers, so unfortunately we need to curb their entry too.

That would not have been offensive and I wholeheartedly disagree with the folks who think that there's no way to be firm about one's views without offending large amounts of people. There's a difference between people disagreeing with you and being outraged. Now if we want to get argumentative and philosophical, sure someone somewhere, somehow might be offended by my rephrasing of Trump's position (they might also be offended by Mickey Mouse). But you got to admit it's not nearly as offensive as what Trump said even though I basically argued for the very same measures to be taken!

I believe that many people use the word "politically incorrect" to describe their views when they really mean "hostile, inflammatory" and I realize the irony that I might just have offended a few LOL. I don't think there's anything politically incorrect (read: hostile, inflammatory) about MY argument for border control. Civility is not a sign of weakness IMO.

 

[Finny]

if you want a good paying job or education for that matter.

And that is why it is opposed by elitists...First it's 'unfair' [well it's kinda unfair to have rules for anything the the argument goes] and second, it brings people together and enables them to cooperate on their own. We simply cannot have THAT, THAT is the sole job of a strong authoritarian central government rune by elitists who know better than we what to do.
Isure hope Trump doesn't go there and as a free market advocate, a capitalist, chances are good he won't.

 

[Finny]

He is after all an arrogant bully.

Not so fast. What elitists don't like about Trump is that he is overt and candid in what he says and what he does. They may not understand how he gets that to work...consider the mess media for example and how utterly wrong they have been so far, the Republican establishment,too, for that matter about Trumps popularity.
Elitists couch everything they say say and do in obscure language because they know the vast majority of the population will not go along with most of what they want...power for themselves...

Trump reminds me in some ways of some of the best bosses I ever worked for. In your face when you screw up [you never make that mistake again!] laudatory when you hit a home run, sometimes sarcastic and smart. And most of all, when presented with facts and circumstances, willing listen and change their minds and support a new course of action. We'll have to see how Trump performs when presented with better ideas.

 

[Finny]

He could have easily said that there are a MINORITY of border crossers who are criminals in their home country (which is much, much closer to the truth hence more honest)

Exactly what do you think Trump said?

 

[Finny]

It seems to me like some of these folks are basically "out to offend" (which isn't the same as being honest!).

That's could be because the media wants you to think that.

I haven't heard anything from Trump that is terribly 'offensive'. He says what he thinks and the media tends to blow it all out of proportion. I'm sure he has said some dumb things, like we all do, but what is SO unusual is he is honest. He actually says what he thinks. He's candid.

What did we hear when Obama told 'Joe the plumber' he [Obama] wants to 'transform America'. Not much. The mass [mess] media LIKES that language, but what could be more offensive? What is worse than confiscating your earnings/property and redistributing it to others deemed by government elitists to be more 'deserving'? When has THAT ever worked? I don't think the hard working people in Ferguson, Mo [for example those who cheered the police recently when outside rabble rousers brought into foment unrest were arrested] want their hard won independence 'transformed'.

When people speak bluntly, or for that matter say anything, there are two basic responses: Why do you say that? [which fosters communication] or "That is offensive! If you know Saul Alinksy's RULES FOR RADICALS, you'll understand why the left wing media always takes the latter approach: It's 'splits the herd' so to speak, into factions. And Rambo Emanuel follows that with his own 'offensive' comment: " You never let a serious crisis go to waste". [Rambo was Obama's chief of staff, now Mayor of Chicago.] THAT also received scant attention as being 'offensive'.

 

[Finny]

Another reason I think Trump is seeing such popularity is that people are fed up with the status quo in politics and government

for sure.
Specifically, people seem fed up with big government enthusiasts who have forgotten " to serve" means to "to serve the people", to be 'government servants'...not to 'serve yourselves' and your personal interests,profits and power and stay in Washington forever. Do we even have two parties anymore in the US? Sometimes hard to tell.

 

[Rintintin]

But he's not just speaking bluntly, Finny, he's implying (actually saying overtly) that a whole ethnic group is no good, "not like us." You may want to believe that he's referring to the criminals but he makes it quite clear in this quote that he's speaking in general terms, then halfheartedly conceding that there may be some exceptions (some good people, he assumes), as an afterthought.

I think he's hurting conservatism. Honesty may be refreshing but his views are too troubling to be refreshing. He shouldn't be ashamed or shamed for wanting to seal the border, it's important to do that in order to block criminals, drugs, weapons. Some may also feel that the job market can't absorb all of those unskilled laborers, which is valid. But what he did is call Mexican peasants overall criminals and sex offenders... barring exceptions.

Here's what he did say:

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

I could have sympathized with him if he had said "Many of the Mexican people crossing over have lots of problems. They're mostly unskilled and destitute. I understand that they may be looking for a better life or escaping unsafe environments, but our country can't handle the massive influx of needy folks right now. We need to focus on our own poor and needy first, on our unemployed" Then he could have said "There are also some criminals entering, some violent and sex offenders"

But he basically reversed that by vilifying Mexicans at large, then conceding to some exceptions.

Realistically, every time you have a first world country WALKING DISTANCE from an extremely poor one you're going to get a massive influx of destitute, uneducated folks. This is not really about being Mexican or speaking a particular language. If you placed Botswana right next to the U.S., you'd have the same problem. If you replaced Mexico with The Philippines, India or even China (which does have many poor and illiterate folks who lack the means to make it here in droves), same problem. The reason you mostly get high-skill "respectable" immigrants from those areas is that the sheer distance prevents the poorest of the poor from even considering that they could come. If they could just walk over, you bet they would.

When Trump says that the people coming over "are not like you" one could say that he's partly right but not for the reasons he's presenting us with (that those people are morally bankrupt, depraved). He's right in the sense that they're (mainly) the poorest of the poor from an already poor country, so in that sense they're not like the average American. But there's something disturbing in listening to someone say that "those people" are "not you." They could be you if you had been born in their shoes (and I'm talking about the peasants, of course not the violent offenders).

 

[TurtleMeister]

@Rintintin

You have to realize that most of the time when Trump speaks he is speaking off the cuff. When speaking in that manner it is normal to make mistakes, to say something that sounds different than what you really want to convey. It's happened to all of us. The quote you posted is riddled with errors. For example, "bringing those problems with us". Obviously he meant bringing those problems to us. And that's really part of his appeal, he's speaking his mind and not worrying about political correctness. I would actually rather for someone to speak that way instead of carefully crafting their words to make it difficult to know what's really on their mind. The key point that is being made in that quote is that the US has little control over it's southern border, and that is true.

I haven't been following this as much as others here, but I am not getting the feeling that Trump is a racist. But I'm sure the media will try and make you think that. If you can find a pattern of this type of behavior from Trump then I would certainly like to know about it.

 

[Finny]

"When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best." almost certainly refers in part to Mexican government pamphlets that tell people how to immigrate to the US illegally. Did Castro send his best during the Mariel boat lift...of course not. To think a country wants to export its best,brightest,fully employed is naive. Who is most likely to come here illegally, somebody well educated with a good job in Mexico or criminals trying to evade authorities who already know them?

When Mexican officials came to Arizona sometime ago they said "Don't send these people back to us, we can't take care of them."

[Sonoran legislators say] Sonora — Arizona's southern neighbor, made up of mostly small towns — cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers [in Tucson] return to their hometowns without jobs or money.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/immigration/mexicoangry.asp#dpVrcgsPEvgLoxw6.99

 

[Rintintin]

It's definitely objectionable for the Mexican government to encourage their unemployed to cross over to the U.S. It is their job to take care of those people so they should certainly be ashamed.

I don't mean to get all philosophical, but let's break down the phrase "They [Mexicans] are not sending their best [people]" What does it mean to not be the best? Most would interpret it the way you did in your post above: someone of low SES and a low level of education, sometimes illiterate. There's something, IMO, ethically questionable about measuring a person's worth by SES.

You said they're not really sending their brightest and I don't criticize you for using that term because it's so widespread and I use it all the time to describe the highly skilled too, but intelligence =/= level of achievement, at least not in the reverse (no achievement = no intelligence) so we can't know that there aren't bright people or even potential geniuses crossing over along with their illiterate parents. Being under-educated is not an immutable characteristic. That's why I see the point of some in the left about allowing these children to get an education, while also understanding that might be financially difficult if the influx of low SES folks is not slowed down.

It's a very difficult subject from an ethical standpoint and I don't blame a U.S. candidate for wanting to seal the border for the simple reason that no country, no matter how wealthy can successfully absorb millions of desperately poor unskilled folks without suffering in the process. But that's not the same as saying that those people are bad, corrupt or "not like us." They're just the way we would be if we were born in their environment with the same level of access to education, to jobs and so on.

I really don't understand why many on the right can't see shades of grey. It's either let's open the border to every needy starving person in the world or let's massively vilify needy starving people as villains or hardened criminals (as if most of us wouldn't try to flee the types of environments they live in). Why not a third option? Realizing that we can't afford to let in so many people while still acknowledging them as mostly normal folks who want better opportunities for their loved ones, probably because they realize that the world is a tough, unwelcoming place for those like themselves.

I should probably not bring this up right now cause it's hard enough to write from a small tablet LOL but someone already pointed out that for a rock bottom poor person who often can't read or write it's not realistic to hire a lawyer to apply for a visa. In fact, even if they did that they wouldn't be accepted precisely because of their low SES.

Not to echo Tim Wise (especially given that I'm a fiscal conservative, against affirmative action, and so on and forth) but credit where it's due, and he is right about the U.S. having drastically changed its immigration policies making it completely non applicable for people to say "but my great grandpa entered legally and he was starving" I'm sure he did, and I'm sure he was but the U.S. does not let in people like him legally anymore, and IMO many of you are being naive if you think your great grandparents, if they were really starving and in danger of being killed would not have entered 'illegally' with their kids. As i said, a very difficult subject from an ethical standpoint.

 

[WWGD]

Huh? If 10 people arrive illegally and 11 people leave legally, you still had 10 people arrive illegally (by the way: the factoid actually didn't even differentiate between legal and illegal). The net flow does not negate the fact that people arrived illegally and something should be done about it. I see no relevance whatsoever for this factoid.

If 10 people commit theft but a different 11 people do not commit theft, does that mean we don't need to enforce theft laws? Of course not: The two facts have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

<Snip>

I don't think you understand why this discussion is happening. People (politicians) discuss problems because problems need to be fixed. They don't discuss the benefits of a situation because benefits do not need to be fixed. Indeed, the fact that a person lists problems related to illegal immigration does not mean they do not

Quite clearly, exactly 100% of people crossing illegally are committing a crime. If you are saying you want to decriminalize illegal immigration, that's a big change (note: that's you arguing to change the status quo/fix something you see as a "problem").

Yes, as a matter of law, quite clearly someone who crosses the border illegally has committed a crime: they are a criminal. That you (or I) take pity on them for their situation is a separate issue. If you want to streamline asylum hearings/applications, that would probably be fine with me, but you cannot say that someone who has broken a law has not done something illegal. That's an at-face-value self-contradiction.

This bears repeating:

Trump is a blowhard, but that doesn't make blowhard responses to him OK. There are real issues here that many people believe should be addressed (even some you agree should be addressed, WWGD, even if you gloss-over them).

I don't think you're understanding me, maybe I am not being clear. Let me just address a few, since this is too long. ,

First of all, Trump has not offered any evidence that these illegal crossers are responsible for any crimes whatsoever. Many here have wrongly conflated crimes committed by illegals with crimes committed by border crossers. It is important to distinguish these two to at least have a discussion based on an accurate assessment of the problem. That is what I am trying to do in part.

Do you seriously believe that a do-nothing congress , which gets almost nothing done in general, will take quick action towards streamlining visas for Central Americans? Well, they have done nothing about it so far, and poor, uneducated Central Americans do not likely know how the US political system works, and even if they did, they are not rich -enough to hire lobbyists to do their bidding for them in congress n order to have it pay attention to their situation.
So you suggest they risk their lives in order to stay within the law? Would _you_ do that if _you_ were living in a war zone and you did not have the tools to travel somewhere safer? So you expect them to put legality ahead of preserving their lives? In this situation I don't think this is a false dichotomy, because they are not likely, at their level of education, aware of their alternatives, do not ave resources to neither hire lawyers nor lobbyists for congress. Notice that unlike you, most of these people do not know what alternatives are available to them, and do not have a safe position in which to rationally evaluate their options while thousands are dying around them. An yes, I do believe that this and other points do provide a necessary context, so that all , or at least more of the facts are on the table.
Legal options are readily available, for the most part, to the wealthier, better -educated , not so much so for other groups. It does not seem fair to demand, expect legal compliance under these conditions.

Basically most, if not all, of (the families of ) those chiding them for not going through the legal channels did not have to go through these conditions themselves.

I will try to address the other points when I have time.

 

[TurtleMeister]

When the American people go to the polls to vote in 2016 I doubt that the internal problems of Mexico will be forefront on their minds. However, the effect that illegal immigration has on their lives, the economy, and the future of their country most certainly will.

It's good for two border countries to work together to try and solve each others problems, but it's not good for one country to try and solve it's problems through the detriment of the other. But in this case I don't really blame the Mexican government for the illegal crossings. It's clearly the fault of the US government. Border crossings should be most strictly controlled for people coming in, not out. Preventing people from leaving by force reminds me of the Berlin Wall.

 

[chingel]

WWGD, you are putting forth a false dichotomy. It is not that they need to get to the USA or die. Around 600 million people live in Latin America and plenty do not live in a war zone. If some of these people are in immediate danger and they are able to smuggle themselves through many countries to get to the USA, it means they are able to travel and can find a place to live in other countries as well. They have traveled long distances and could have gone elsewhere if they knew the US-Mexican border was closed.

So USA is not the only option for the guy who is being persecuted. The real question is, does the USA want and need poor illiterate peasants who can't come legally? You say yes, the border needs to stay the way it is so that it is possible for poor illiterate peasants to come illegally if they wish. Others, like Trump, say no, close the border like it is closed with other countries, and then let educated people from around the world come legally to have a chance in the USA, giving all the people a fair chance and not discriminating with the Mexican privilege of crossing the border as you wish.

 

[WWGD]

WWGD, you are putting forth a false dichotomy. It is not that they need to get to the USA or die. Around 600 million people live in Latin America and plenty do not live in a war zone. If some of these people are in immediate danger and they are able to smuggle themselves through many countries to get to the USA, it means they are able to travel and can find a place to live in other countries as well. They have traveled long distances and could have gone elsewhere if they knew the US-Mexican border was closed.

So USA is not the only option for the guy who is being persecuted. The real question is, does the USA want and need poor illiterate peasants who can't come legally? You say yes, the border needs to stay the way it is so that it is possible for poor illiterate peasants to come illegally if they wish. Others, like Trump, say no, close the border like it is closed with other countries, and then let educated people from around the world come legally to have a chance in the USA, giving all the people a fair chance and not discriminating with the Mexican privilege of crossing the border as you wish.

I am referring to people from central America, because I seriously doubt someone from South America would travel 1,000+ miles by foot/truck. And these people "smuggle themselves through many countries" because the only safe option is either the U.S or parts of Mexico, no sense in moving to another war zone. So yes, I guess Mexico could also afford a few, but no sense in them moving to another war zone. And it is _not_ that they cannot come legally, it is that there lives are being threatened and they do not have the resources, neither educational nor economic to apply legally for immigration , and they do not want to move to another war zone. So , yes, by this measure, it is either Mexico or the U.S as the only viable option to save their lives. What other choices are there? Colombia? A war zone. Any other country in South America is more than 1,000 miles away, so hardly an option, and not a false dichotomy. Besides, a country like the U.S , with 320 million people and $16 trillion GDP is much better able to absorb people than war-torn countries with <10 million people and around $30 bn GDP. Only country in reasonable shape is Costa Rica, at a tiny 4.8 million population. So you go where you are most likely to be safe and to have resources available to you.

 

[WWGD]

When the American people go to the polls to vote in 2016 I doubt that the internal problems of Mexico will be forefront on their minds. However, the effect that illegal immigration has on their lives, the economy, and the future of their country most certainly will.

It's good for two border countries to work together to try and solve each others problems, but it's not good for one country to try and solve it's problems through the detriment of the other. But in this case I don't really blame the Mexican government for the illegal crossings. It's clearly the fault of the US government. Border crossings should be most strictly controlled for people coming in, not out. Preventing people from leaving by force reminds me of the Berlin Wall.

Just what are the costs of illegal immigration? I have not seen any conclusive studies. Illegals rent apartments, buy groceries, and have their S.S taxes held up, which they will never get back. If you have some studies that show a clear negative effect then please let me know.

 

[Astronuc]

Progressive Trump? Trump says tax code is letting hedge funds 'get away with murder'
http://news.yahoo.com/trump-says-tax-code-letting-hedge-funds-away-155930927--sector.html

Trump's comments were referring to the so-called "carried interest loophole" - a provision in the tax code which allows private equity and hedge fund managers pay taxes at the capital gains rate instead of the ordinary income rate.

Many fund managers are in the top income bracket, but the capital gains tax bracket is only 20 percent.

While these individuals are also required to pay an additional 3.8 percent surtax on their net investment income, this total rate is still far lower than the 39.6 percent rate that top wage earners must pay on their ordinary income.

 

[chingel]

I am referring to people from central America, because I seriously doubt someone from South America would travel 1,000+ miles by foot/truck. And these people "smuggle themselves through many countries" because the only safe option is either the U.S or parts of Mexico, no sense in moving to another war zone. So yes, I guess Mexico could also afford a few, but no sense in them moving to another war zone. And it is _not_ that they cannot come legally, it is that there lives are being threatened and they do not have the resources, neither educational nor economic to apply legally for immigration , and they do not want to move to another war zone. So , yes, by this measure, it is either Mexico or the U.S as the only viable option to save their lives. What other choices are there? Colombia? A war zone. Any other country in South America is more than 1,000 miles away, so hardly an option, and not a false dichotomy. Besides, a country like the U.S , with 320 million people and $16 trillion GDP is much better able to absorb people than war-torn countries with <10 million people and around $30 bn GDP. Only country in reasonable shape is Costa Rica, at a tiny 4.8 million population. So you go where you are most likely to be safe and to have resources available to you.

Going across Mexico is already 1000+ miles. Might as well go to Brazil or Peru or some other place. I'm sure that while traveling 1000+ miles they can find a small place that isn't ridden with violence and gangs. Of course in the huge cities of Columbia where millions live it is dangerous, they don't have to go there. There are lots of small places where people live in farms and they can go work there.

The USA is a developed country. The poor peasants you talk about don't speak the language nor have the proper education to succeed in the USA. When they go to another Latin country, they already speak the language and they can start living a simple life in a farm.

The USA should accept educated people who benefit the society of the USA the most. The poor illiterate peasant you talk about who is in the middle of a war can travel across the Central and South America to find a calmer place to settle and continue his peasantry, instead of going 1000+ miles to the USA where he doesn't fit in, because he can't even read and write in his own language, never mind in English.

 

[Evo]

Closed for moderation again.

 

[Astronuc]

Fox News chief: Donald Trump owes Megyn Kelly an apology
http://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-critiques-megyn-kellys-return-140029472.html

NEW YORK (AP) — Fox News chief Roger Ailes said Tuesday that Donald Trump owes the network's Megyn Kelly an apology for an unprovoked Twitter attack that "is as unacceptable as it is disturbing," but Trump isn't backing down.

The Republican presidential front-runner-turned-TV-critic had welcomed Kelly back from a vacation Monday night by tweeting that he liked her show better while she was away. Trump said Kelly "must have had a terrible vacation" because "she's really off her game." He retweeted a message that referred to her as a bimbo.

"Megyn Kelly represents the very best of American journalism and all of us at Fox News Channel reject the crude and irresponsible attempts to suggest otherwise," said Ailes, the Fox News Channel chairman. "I could not be more proud of Megyn for her professionalism and class in the face of all of Mr. Trump's verbal assaults."

Trump is just being impolite.

I reflect on the probity of George Washington, James Madison, John Jay, or Alexander Hamilton.

 

[Astronuc]

Donald Trump vs the GOP
http://news.yahoo.com/donald-trump-threatens-republicans-worst-120135798.html
Good report and interview by Bianna Golodryga

Celebrities weigh in on the Trump - serious and amusing.
https://celebrity.yahoo.com/blogs/celeb-news/celebrities-diss-donald-trump-161430339.html