Donald J Trump, your thoughts on his Presidency

[LTS]

14 hours ago, Scottysabres said:

LTS, surely your not going down that road? 

"Perhaps I missed where the Democrats are importing illegal citizens into the country?  They may not be as opposed to it, but to declare that they are the causation of it is unfounded. People have been entering this country illegally for longer than any one party has had power."

If your not beyond discussing this honestly, then there is nothing more to say I reckon. If you are unwilling to admit the Democrat Party is not only encouraging illegal crossings of the border, but actually facilitate it by their very support, then, I guess we have nothing to discuss.

This isn't a game to myself LTS, I would like you to understand, I've seen the results first hand. I am no more, nor less, a complete supporter of protection for us, citizens.

My counter question to you is this...…………………...why is this even debatable given the KNOWN cases of lost citizens lives? Are their lives NOT WORTH the effort to protect them?

If you answer in the positive for illegal immigrants in either questions, then why SHOULD I PAY taxes at all? Since my family, my self, are not, in point of fact, to receive the services payed for? More importantly, and I know, this sounds so hysterical, but why shouldn't I grab what fire arms I have and immediately head for the border to shot on sight, because the only protection myself and my family have is to do so, since the agencies I PAY FOR put in place are unable to do so SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE DEMOCRATS protect THESE MURDERERS?

These are valid questions, as well as potential actions that may have to take place to prevent my loved ones from being murdered, no? Is it not a possibility? I say it is based on data.

I am asking you to provide some supportable evidence of your claims that Democrats are actively importing illegal citizens into this country.  That is how discussion works.  Rather than provide any information you fall upon the dismissive trying to intimate that I am not willing to admit something.  For the record, I am asking you to provide proof which is a far cry from saying that you are wrong. 

No one made claims of there being a game here.  You are being asked to provide proof of your claims.  If they are so obvious, there should be plenty of proof to provide.

Your counter-question does not have any part of the debate of your initial claim.  The discussion of protecting citizens lives is one facet of the discussion on illegal immigration. In order for us to worry about it, the illegal immigrant has to enter the country.  There are numerous ways that happens, you have stated that Democrats are actively importing illegal immigrants.

Your commentary on taxes?  I have no idea why you are going there.  It's not germane to the discussion either.  It stinks of looking for anything to try and divert attention away from you being asked to provide proof.

From where I sit, it seems that you are unable to delineate the differences in what is happening.  You are mistakenly attributing the action of importation to the democratic party when you are more upset about the fact that they support policies that make it harder to export illegal immigrants when they are found.

So, once again, provide proof of the Democratic party actively IMPORTING illegal immigrants into this country.   This is your chance to support your point, it's your chance to not have your statements dismissed.

[SABRES 0311]

This is so pathetic it’s funny. One side yells wall the other yells racism and promotes sanctuary cities. Both sides throw numbers around like they can’t be manipulated. Americans yell and fight with each other about something most know nothing about. 

Why don’t both sides ask their political leaders why they focus on a symptom and not the cause? If you are so worried about illegals go to their country and face the ones creating their hell. If you say you care so much for them and their safety then prove it and do the same.

If you think you can’t, ask the Americans who went to Iraq to fight ISIS after the military left.  No time for that. Too busy acting like we know what’s happening because we read a stat from a document approved by a politician. Or we are too busy learning how to fight each other because the person we voted for says our side is right. Everyone is either racist or unpatriotic if they don’t agree. 

[LTS]

1 hour ago, SABRES 0311 said:

This is so pathetic it’s funny. One side yells wall the other yells racism and promotes sanctuary cities. Both sides throw numbers around like they can’t be manipulated. Americans yell and fight with each other about something most know nothing about. 

Why don’t both sides ask their political leaders why they focus on a symptom and not the cause? If you are so worried about illegals go to their country and face the ones creating their hell. If you say you care so much for them and their safety then prove it and do the same.

If you think you can’t, ask the Americans who went to Iraq to fight ISIS after the military left.  No time for that. Too busy acting like we know what’s happening because we read a stat from a document approved by a politician. Or we are too busy learning how to fight each other because the person we voted for says our side is right. Everyone is either racist or unpatriotic if they don’t agree. 

Are you referring to the specific posters here in this rant or are you generalizing about those who support Democrats and Republicans?

[SABRES 0311]

11 hours ago, LTS said:

Are you referring to the specific posters here in this rant or are you generalizing about those who support Democrats and Republicans?

I'm talking about anyone who goes to the extreme on either side. A person is not racist or hateful because they are concerned about terrorists, drug and human traffickers mixing in with people coming across the border illegally. At the same time, not all illegal immigrants are coming here to destroy our way of life. Grabbing a gun and going to the border is going to do what? You have no arrest authority and use of a weapon will likely result in criminal charges. Setting up sanctuary cities does not protect people from the evil, scary ICE. If anything it gives ICE an idea of where to look. It also causes division in the application of state and federal laws further dividing the country. Furthermore, ICE is not some off shoot of the KKK so I don't get the idea of calling them or their actions racist. If you were a cop and were given a description of a white, black, hispanic, or asian suspect you are probably going to look for someone fitting that description. It is called investigating a crime such as crossing into the U.S. illegally.    

I think the U.S. should take in people seeking a better life. But at some point you have to look at what is causing these people to make the long dangerous and eventually illegal journey into the U.S. You can discredit whatever I say calling it a rant. All I'm saying is if you care so much on either side of the issue then do something that actually affects change like pressuring politicians to do their jobs besides trying to stick it to each other. Or maybe get involved with an organization that fights against what is going on in South and Central America. I can tell you right now throwing numbers and reciting talking points to each other on here isn't doing anything.

[LTS]

12 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I'm talking about anyone who goes to the extreme on either side. A person is not racist or hateful because they are concerned about terrorists, drug and human traffickers mixing in with people coming across the border illegally. At the same time, not all illegal immigrants are coming here to destroy our way of life. Grabbing a gun and going to the border is going to do what? You have no arrest authority and use of a weapon will likely result in criminal charges. Setting up sanctuary cities does not protect people from the evil, scary ICE. If anything it gives ICE an idea of where to look. It also causes division in the application of state and federal laws further dividing the country. Furthermore, ICE is not some off shoot of the KKK so I don't get the idea of calling them or their actions racist. If you were a cop and were given a description of a white, black, hispanic, or asian suspect you are probably going to look for someone fitting that description. It is called investigating a crime such as crossing into the U.S. illegally.    

I think the U.S. should take in people seeking a better life. But at some point you have to look at what is causing these people to make the long dangerous and eventually illegal journey into the U.S. You can discredit whatever I say calling it a rant. All I'm saying is if you care so much on either side of the issue then do something that actually affects change like pressuring politicians to do their jobs besides trying to stick it to each other. Or maybe get involved with an organization that fights against what is going on in South and Central America. I can tell you right now throwing numbers and reciting talking points to each other on here isn't doing anything.

I see now.

When you (you specifically) enter a conversation and begin using the word you to refer to a general populace it can be quite confusing on who you (you specifically) are referring to.

It's also helpful if one addresses the person they expect a response from so that person might recognize that you are directing statements or questions at that person. For example, your statements about grabbing a gun are clearly not targeted at me as I am not the one who said that.  However, in reading it, it feels as though you are attributing it to me.

There are plenty of illegal immigrants in my area.  They will soon return to the area to begin doing the jobs, off the books, that the government has made too expensive to hire US citizens to do legally.  I'm not concerned with who is here as long as they are being productive.  At some point we'll all realize that borders are artificial divides and that pitting one nation against another is a waste of resources.

With regards to your last sentence, this is a forum meant for discussion. So on here, the only thing people can do is throw around numbers and recite talking points. That's the point of discussion.  It may actually do something in that it may actually inform people and educate people. It may spark action that was otherwise not already being taken. Finally, discussing these points on here is not mutually exclusive of taking action outside of this forum. Certainly one can argue that spending time posting on here consumes time that could be spent engaging in action, but life is not always about action, and this forum is more about the Buffalo Sabres than it is illegal immigration.

TL;DR
- address the person to whom you are making a counter point
- I don't disagree with much of what you said
- this is a forum, it's about discussing

[SABRES 0311]

8 minutes ago, LTS said:

I see now.

When you (you specifically) enter a conversation and begin using the word you to refer to a general populace it can be quite confusing on who you (you specifically) are referring to.

It's also helpful if one addresses the person they expect a response from so that person might recognize that you are directing statements or questions at that person. For example, your statements about grabbing a gun are clearly not targeted at me as I am not the one who said that.  However, in reading it, it feels as though you are attributing it to me.

There are plenty of illegal immigrants in my area.  They will soon return to the area to begin doing the jobs, off the books, that the government has made too expensive to hire US citizens to do legally.  I'm not concerned with who is here as long as they are being productive.  At some point we'll all realize that borders are artificial divides and that pitting one nation against another is a waste of resources.

With regards to your last sentence, this is a forum meant for discussion. So on here, the only thing people can do is throw around numbers and recite talking points. That's the point of discussion.  It may actually do something in that it may actually inform people and educate people. It may spark action that was otherwise not already being taken. Finally, discussing these points on here is not mutually exclusive of taking action outside of this forum. Certainly one can argue that spending time posting on here consumes time that could be spent engaging in action, but life is not always about action, and this forum is more about the Buffalo Sabres than it is illegal immigration.

TL;DR
- address the person to whom you are making a counter point
- I don't disagree with much of what you said
- this is a forum, it's about discussing

Thanks for the lesson. If somehow you felt I was targeting you in someway look at yourself. Maybe you have a guilty conscience. Please please please believe if I were to address a specific person they (you) would know.

[Eleven]

Let’s cool it down, please.

[drnkirishone]

5 hours ago, Eleven said:

Let’s cool it down, please.

Good luck with that

[LTS]

On 4/10/2019 at 9:26 AM, SABRES 0311 said:

Thanks for the lesson. If somehow you felt I was targeting you in someway look at yourself. Maybe you have a guilty conscience. Please please please believe if I were to address a specific person they (you) would know.

No, I was asking to clarify for everyone who might read it. Better to ask than just assume things.

 

[Scottysabres]

AND...…………………….WAIT FOR IT...…………………………………………..Low and behold, the MSM of the Liberal Left, the DEMOCRAT PARTY, Is now admitting what President Trump, hell, what many of us who have traveled the southern states and border regions have known for a long time, It's a CRISES AT THE BORDER...…………..

Who would of thought?...……………………………..(my best sarcasm face)

When you support policies that are NOT CITIZENS FIRST, don't be surprised when crap like this happens. It isn't as though, magically, ALL OF SUDDEN, hundreds of thousands to millions of Central Americans decided to FLEE war torn, crime ridden, drug cartel controlled nations. It just so happens DEMOCRATS TOLD THEM, IT'S OK, COME ON IN, WE HAVE A PLAN...……………………

And now, MORE CITIZENS LIVES WILL BE LOST, more resources will be overwhelmed. BUT HEY, SOME OF YOU DON'T GIVE A *****, JUST MAKE IT HAPPEN YOU SAY, F THE USA, F THE WHITE MAN YOU SAY.

And here is your precious MSM now clearly stating it's a crises.

I just shake my head at the pure stupidity.

[Weave]

Crisis.  It's right there in the headline.

Sorry, I had to.

[LGR4GM]

4 hours ago, Scottysabres said:

AND...…………………….WAIT FOR IT...…………………………………………..Low and behold, the MSM of the Liberal Left, the DEMOCRAT PARTY, Is now admitting what President Trump, hell, what many of us who have traveled the southern states and border regions have known for a long time, It's a CRISES AT THE BORDER...…………..

Who would of thought?...……………………………..(my best sarcasm face)

When you support policies that are NOT CITIZENS FIRST, don't be surprised when crap like this happens. It isn't as though, magically, ALL OF SUDDEN, hundreds of thousands to millions of Central Americans decided to FLEE war torn, crime ridden, drug cartel controlled nations. It just so happens DEMOCRATS TOLD THEM, IT'S OK, COME ON IN, WE HAVE A PLAN...……………………

And now, MORE CITIZENS LIVES WILL BE LOST, more resources will be overwhelmed. BUT HEY, SOME OF YOU DON'T GIVE A *****, JUST MAKE IT HAPPEN YOU SAY, F THE USA, F THE WHITE MAN YOU SAY.

And here is your precious MSM now clearly stating it's a crises.

I just shake my head at the pure stupidity.

This, is a rant. It isn't a discussion. What's stupid is thinking a 25 billion dollar wall will fix the problem. Also if it is such a crisis why didn't the Republicans do something in 2017 or 2018 when they controlled everything. 

This will be my last response to you unless you can have an actual conversation. You're ranting, not discussing.  Also where does this info come from? I have a good idea but as always, give us your source so we can evaluate it for ourselves. 

[SABRES 0311]

I would think you need physical barriers along with the personnel and tech. Without all three you have gaps. I mean there will be gaps anyway but easier to exploit. Problem is I don't see it all happening at once either for fiscal reasons or political. I don't know CBPs approach but IMO first they need to identify what non-port of entry areas illegals are using the most. Then look at the terrain to see if a physical barrier is feasible. From there they could prioritize in order to get the appropriate defense in at the right time. If they have already done this then I would hope CBP through DHS is communicating their recommendations as to where a barrier needs to go, what positions need more personnel, and what new/upgraded equipment they need and where. Just as important is the justification for what they need.

Now I wonder if DHS has an issue in either evaluating the situation and/or communicating the above. My guess is its a communication problem. If so Nielsen likely quit because she got tired of getting yelled at by both sides for an inability to articulate the situation and needs. If I had to guess, the chain from the individual agent through CBP to DHS is long enough to screw up communication. This would make sense because its a mix of political appointees and LE personnel. Probably some infighting within DHS as well. Hope this didn't come off as a rant but more of an assessment.

 

[LTS]

15 hours ago, Scottysabres said:

AND...…………………….WAIT FOR IT...…………………………………………..Low and behold, the MSM of the Liberal Left, the DEMOCRAT PARTY, Is now admitting what President Trump, hell, what many of us who have traveled the southern states and border regions have known for a long time, It's a CRISES AT THE BORDER...…………..

[... deleted to shorten the post length...]

I just shake my head at the pure stupidity.

If you want to refer to something, can you please post a link so people can understand what you are referring to? 

Furthermore, you are ignoring responses back to you.  

I'll be blunt, either have a discussion or leave the group.

9 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

I would think you need physical barriers along with the personnel and tech. Without all three you have gaps. I mean there will be gaps anyway but easier to exploit. Problem is I don't see it all happening at once either for fiscal reasons or political. I don't know CBPs approach but IMO first they need to identify what non-port of entry areas illegals are using the most. Then look at the terrain to see if a physical barrier is feasible. From there they could prioritize in order to get the appropriate defense in at the right time. If they have already done this then I would hope CBP through DHS is communicating their recommendations as to where a barrier needs to go, what positions need more personnel, and what new/upgraded equipment they need and where. Just as important is the justification for what they need.

Now I wonder if DHS has an issue in either evaluating the situation and/or communicating the above. My guess is its a communication problem. If so Nielsen likely quit because she got tired of getting yelled at by both sides for an inability to articulate the situation and needs. If I had to guess, the chain from the individual agent through CBP to DHS is long enough to screw up communication. This would make sense because its a mix of political appointees and LE personnel. Probably some infighting within DHS as well. Hope this didn't come off as a rant but more of an assessment.

 

I think the bottom line of what you are saying is that the government is too big and too incompetent.  I would agree, so asking them to embark on such an endeavor would be futile. This is without even accounting for the financial aspects of building such barriers, etc. as you described.

 People who flee countries because their lives are at stake are not going to be deterred by walls, guards, etc.  

Moreover, let's hypothetically say you can build a wall that deters entry from Southern land borders.  How long before immigrants are hopping in boats and traveling across the Gulf or up to Canada to get in?  Are we going to wall off Canada?  

What if Mexico were to improve its economic standing such that immigrants were content to settle there (or stay there)?  Would that not be a much better solution?

 

[SABRES 0311]

1 minute ago, LTS said:

I think the bottom line of what you are saying is that the government is too big and too incompetent.  I would agree, so asking them to embark on such an endeavor would be futile. This is without even accounting for the financial aspects of building such barriers, etc. as you described.

 People who flee countries because their lives are at stake are not going to be deterred by walls, guards, etc.  

Moreover, let's hypothetically say you can build a wall that deters entry from Southern land borders.  How long before immigrants are hopping in boats and traveling across the Gulf or up to Canada to get in?  Are we going to wall off Canada?  

What if Mexico were to improve its economic standing such that immigrants were content to settle there (or stay there)?  Would that not be a much better solution?

 

Exactly. I’m not saying it’s big in “big brother” way. Physically too many levels. Reminds me of Office Space.

History has proven walls and everything aren’t impenetrable but history also shows they serve a purpose. Provided they are incorporated properly as part of a larger effort.

Agree. Improved economics and security within their own countries benefits everyone. How that happens I don’t know. 

[Eleven]

13 hours ago, LGR4GM said:

Also if it is such a crisis why didn't the Republicans do something in 2017 or 2018 when they controlled everything. 

I've been asking this question since January 1 and no one seems to have an answer.  Even the lame duck Congress after the election could have done something if it really needed to be done.  So, really, the issue is just a political football.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Eleven

[Weave]

20 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I've been asking this question since January 1 and no one seems to have an answer.  Even the lame duck Congress after the election could have done something if it really needed to be done.  So, really, the issue is just a political football.

The answer is, it was set up this way so it could be an issue to rally the base around again for 2020, and they can’t very well come out and say that because it would show just how non-crisis this crisis really is.

Edited April 12, 2019 by Weave

[LGR4GM]

I wonder how much Trump policies have played into this as well. There seems to be a sudden uptick in these "caravans" once trump started publicizing them. Also cutting aid to the countries these people come from seems questionable. Wouldn't safer, more stable countries lower the number of asylum seekers and illegals? 

[Eleven]

1 hour ago, Weave said:

The answer is, it was set up this way so it could be an issue to rally the base around again for 2020, and they can’t very well come out and say that because it would show just how non-crisis this crisis really is.

Yep, that’s what I mean by political football.

5 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I wonder how much Trump policies have played into this as well. There seems to be a sudden uptick in these "caravans" once trump started publicizing them. Also cutting aid to the countries these people come from seems questionable. Wouldn't safer, more stable countries lower the number of asylum seekers and illegals? 

I have no doubt that he is destabilizing things behind the scenes as well.

[SABRES 0311]

7 minutes ago, LGR4GM said:

I wonder how much Trump policies have played into this as well. There seems to be a sudden uptick in these "caravans" once trump started publicizing them. Also cutting aid to the countries these people come from seems questionable. Wouldn't safer, more stable countries lower the number of asylum seekers and illegals? 

If the countries were safer and more stable i don’t see why they would want to make the journey and break another country’s laws. Cutting their aid wouldn’t be the cause though because the caravans were happening before. If nefarious it could prolong the issue for 2020. Or it could be backlash for these countries not doing anything to help. I’d be interested to know how much of that money was being used for it’s intent and how much was being skimmed.

9 minutes ago, Eleven said:

Yep, that’s what I mean by political football.

I have no doubt that he is destabilizing things behind the scenes as well.

Evidence?

[Eleven]

21 minutes ago, SABRES 0311 said:

 

Evidence?

I should have written “little doubt.”  The US has been ***** with South and Central America for over a century; I don’t see why this administration would be any different.

[SABRES 0311]

20 minutes ago, Eleven said:

I should have written “little doubt.”  The US has been ***** with South and Central America for over a century; I don’t see why this administration would be any different.

Maybe you are right that people in our government have something to gain by destabilizing other countries. In fact I will totally agree with you. Pretty sure Cheney had something to do with contract companies in Iraq and Afghanistan. But maybe the man in the White House isn’t the one doing it this time. This is a guy who touts winning everyday. That ego contradicts creating an environment where he can’t deliver on border promises. I think we should look at congressional members of both parties. 

If things get bad enough down there would any of them have something to gain through another war and more country building? When I say look at these people I mean ties to foreign companies, political organizations, social organizations, recent trips (CODEL), and ties to natural resource personalities/organizations. 

EDIT: We should also look into who supports Madurai and Guiado which also leads to their relationships with U.S. officials. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by SABRES 0311

[LTS]

4 hours ago, SABRES 0311 said:

Exactly. I’m not saying it’s big in “big brother” way. Physically too many levels. Reminds me of Office Space.

History has proven walls and everything aren’t impenetrable but history also shows they serve a purpose. Provided they are incorporated properly as part of a larger effort.

Agree. Improved economics and security within their own countries benefits everyone. How that happens I don’t know. 

I might argue that you don't need to improve all the countries.  You just need to improve the ones that you share a border with.  If that one is good enough then they'll stop when they get there.

 

[SABRES 0311]

1 minute ago, LTS said:

I might argue that you don't need to improve all the countries.  You just need to improve the ones that you share a border with.  If that one is good enough then they'll stop when they get there.

 

Definitely. If it was me that would be step one to create a buffer. Step two would be trying to get Mexico to help get other countries on the right path. Trickle affect. Now let’s go watch tv to see our officials do nothing but argue.

[Weave]

Just published today from the Cato Institute....  Not some liberal rag. 

Quote

Michelangelo Landgrave, a doctoral student in political science at the University of California, Riverside, and I released a paper today that estimates that illegal immigrant incarceration rates are about half those of native-born Americans in 2017.  In the same year, legal immigrant incarceration rates are then again half those of illegal immigrants.  Those results are similar to what Landgrave and I published for the years 2014 and 2016.  We estimated illegal immigrant incarceration rates by using the same residual method that demographers use to estimate the number of illegal immigrants in the United States, only we also applied that method to the prison population.  We used the same method to also find that the incarceration rate for young illegal immigrants brought here as children and theoretically eligible for deferred action is slightly below those of native-born Americans.

Quote

 

The second strand of research from Cato looks at criminal conviction rates by immigration status in the state of Texas.  Unlike every other state, Texas keeps track of the immigration statuses of convicted criminals and the crimes that they committed.  Texas is a wonderful state to study because it borders Mexico, has a large illegal immigrant population, is a politically conservative state governed by Republicans, had no jurisdictions that limited its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement in 2015, and it has a law and order reputation for strictly enforcing criminal laws.  If anything, Texas is more serious about enforcing laws against illegal immigrant criminals than other states.  But even here, illegal immigrant conviction rates are about half those of native-born Americans – without any controls for age, education, ethnicity, or any other characteristic.  The illegal immigrant conviction rates for homicide, larceny, and sex crimes are also below those of native-born Americans.  The criminal conviction rates for legal immigrants are the lowest of all.

The Texas research is consistent with the finding that crime along the Mexican border is much lower than in the rest of the country, homicide rates in Mexican states bordering the United States are not correlated with homicide rates here, El Paso’s border fence did not lower crime, Texas criminal conviction rates remain low (but not as low) when recidivism is factored in, and that police clearance rates are not lower in states with many illegal immigrants – which means that they don’t escape conviction by leaving the country after committing crimes.  

 

 

And, from Factcheck.org, illegal immigration has been in decline since 2007.  What crisis?

CMS found a decline in the undocumented population, and specifically those from Mexico, of about 1 million since 2010. And the Pew Research Center found a peak of 12.2 million in the population in 2007, and a decline since.
 

Quote

 

CMS found a decline in the undocumented population, and specifically those from Mexico, of about 1 million since 2010. And the Pew Research Center found a peak of 12.2 million in the population in 2007, and a decline since.