Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread III

Pepefrogok

jobbridge4life wrote: »

http://uk.businessinsider.com/government-shutdown-schumer-wall-funding-for-daca-trump-deal-2018-1?r=US&IR=T

So, a man who immigrated at 18. Went on to earn his keep, started a business, married, raised his children in America educated his children in America, employed people, lived and obeyed the laws in America for several decades should be treated as a common criminal?

Where is the profit for America in that? Other than satiating the basest elements of society Pepe

Sorry, a link showing that trump was offered full funding for the wall, that says "Schumer told members that a deal he offered to Trump would have given the president some funding for the long-promised wall in exchange for codification of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program."

Yes, you cannot reward people for crime, even bank robbers who have got away with it for a long time and helped charities etc should have to give the money up if caught, no point incentivising crime, tell people it will be ok if they scam the system for long enough, anyway, it's not like their home countries are ****holes or anything, they just need to get on with it.

Itssoeasy

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5295795/Doctor-fled-Poland-better-life-faces-deportation.html

This stuff makes no sense to me either. So a legal resident and a green card holder could be deported back to a country he left 40 years ago because of something that happened when he was 17.

Professor Moriarty

The wall won't be built. Even if it was built, it wouldn't work. Any money the Dems give The Donald will be the equivalent to giving a few sweeties to a child.

Noel82

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The wall won't be built. Even if it was built, it wouldn't work. Any money the Dems give The Donald will be the equivalent to giving a few sweeties to a child.

Why wouldn't it work? Walls have worked in many countries, look at Hungary for example, illegal immigration has dropped 99%. You can't just throw statements around like "it wouldn't work". Any evidence or numbers I've seen strongly suggest they do work.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Chief Security Advisor, György Bakondi, announced that the fences have caused illegal immigration to collapse from 391,000 in 2015, to 18,236 in 2016, to just 1,184 in 2017.

http://www.kormany.hu/en/government-spokesperson/news/the-measures-introduced-in-the-interests-of-protecting-the-border-continue-to-be-necessary

Another example, Israel.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/13/ron-johnson/border-fence-israel-cut-illegal-immigration-99-per/

Border fence in Israel cut illegal immigration by 99 percent, GOP senator says

Even Politifact rate it as true.


Bulgaria is another example

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/world/europe/bulgaria-puts-up-a-new-wall-but-this-one-keeps-people-out.html

“In 2012, heightened security was implemented along the Greek border with Turkey, including the building of a fence,” said Gil Arias Fernández, deputy executive director of Frontex, the agency that coordinates border protection throughout the European Union. “The result was that flow changed towards the Bulgarian border.”


It was this deluge that caused Bulgaria to institute its own “containment plan” in November 2013, including the continuing construction of the border fence, which will eventually stretch 100 miles.


The impact was dramatic. The number of known illegal crossings fell to about 4,000 in 2014 from 11,000 the previous year."

Really Interested

Noel82 wrote: »

Why wouldn't it work? Walls have worked in many countries, look at Hungary for example, illegal immigration has dropped 99%. You can't just throw statements around like "it wouldn't work". Any evidence or numbers I've seen strongly suggest they do work.

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Chief Security Advisor, György Bakondi, announced that the fences have caused illegal immigration to collapse from 391,000 in 2015, to 18,236 in 2016, to just 1,184 in 2017.

http://www.kormany.hu/en/government-spokesperson/news/the-measures-introduced-in-the-interests-of-protecting-the-border-continue-to-be-necessary

Another example, Israel.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/13/ron-johnson/border-fence-israel-cut-illegal-immigration-99-per/

Border fence in Israel cut illegal immigration by 99 percent, GOP senator says

Even Politifact rate it as true.


Bulgaria is another example

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/06/world/europe/bulgaria-puts-up-a-new-wall-but-this-one-keeps-people-out.html

“In 2012, heightened security was implemented along the Greek border with Turkey, including the building of a fence,” said Gil Arias Fernández, deputy executive director of Frontex, the agency that coordinates border protection throughout the European Union. “The result was that flow changed towards the Bulgarian border.”


It was this deluge that caused Bulgaria to institute its own “containment plan” in November 2013, including the continuing construction of the border fence, which will eventually stretch 100 miles.


The impact was dramatic. The number of known illegal crossings fell to about 4,000 in 2014 from 11,000 the previous year."

The USA already has a fence!

Manic Moran

The fact that Mexicans in particular are averse to the wall indicates that it is going to have some effect. If the US wants to waste its money, no skin off Mexico's nose.

Professor Moriarty

Manic Moran wrote: »

The fact that Mexicans in particular are averse to the wall indicates that it is going to have some effect. If the US wants to waste its money, no skin off Mexico's nose.

Perhaps Mexico and Mexicans are insulted by the idea? Perhaps they know that more Mexicans leave the US than enter the US? It will indeed be a waste of money and will just be a minor inconvenience to illegal immigrants at best.

Noel82

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Perhaps Mexico and Mexicans are insulted by the idea? Perhaps they know that more Mexicans leave the US than enter the US? It will indeed be a waste of money and will just be a minor inconvenience to illegal immigrants at best.

Based on what? You past two statements are purely speculative whilst ignoring factual evidence that heavy border enforcement works. You can't just make things up and ignore realities when it doesn't coincide with your viewpoint.

Really Interested

Noel82 wrote: »

Based on what? You past two statements are purely speculative whilst ignoring factual evidence that heavy border enforcement works. You can't just make things up and ignore realities when it doesn't coincide with your viewpoint.

How long is the fence in Hungary?

Pepefrogok

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Perhaps Mexico and Mexicans are insulted by the idea? Perhaps they know that more Mexicans leave the US than enter the US? It will indeed be a waste of money and will just be a minor inconvenience to illegal immigrants at best.

Wonder are the Guatemalans offended by the near 600mile wall/fence mexico has built to keep them out?

Fun fact mexico deports more central Americans than the USA!

Noel82

Really Interested wrote: »

How long is the fence in Hungary?

330 miles, Israels is expected to reach 450. The US wall would be roughly 4 times longer - a huge undertaking and I'm in agreement with that point you're subtly trying to make. Fact remains that evidence strongly suggests walls, fences, barriers whatever you want to call them that are actively monitored and maintained are highly effective at combating illegal immigration. When the cost is weighted against the long term benefits the decision is an easy one for me.

Christy42

Noel82 wrote: »

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Perhaps Mexico and Mexicans are insulted by the idea? Perhaps they know that more Mexicans leave the US than enter the US? It will indeed be a waste of money and will just be a minor inconvenience to illegal immigrants at best.

Based on what? You past two statements are purely speculative whilst ignoring factual evidence that heavy border enforcement works. You can't just make things up and ignore realities when it doesn't coincide with your viewpoint.

Based off the majority of illegal immigrants coming to the US by plane which was not case for Hungary. Plus the US has a fence. Why does it need a wall? Do we have evidence of walls being more effective than fences?

I believe the Mexicans are more annoyed at it signifying Mexicans are not welcome (talk of the wall was also talk of referring to illegal immigrants being rapists and burglars generally with presumably some good people) and probably more importantly they thought there was a chance Trump would initiate an economic war to get Mexico to pay for it (remember those days) which definitely have affected Mexicans without really affecting illegal immigration.

Leroy42

Again it comes down to priorities. Sure the tax plan will give middle America relatively small tax breaks, in the short term, but the cost of that is massive tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy.

Sure the wall will have an effect, but the cost is 20bn and rising and what will it actually achieve? And what else could that money have been spent on? It won't stop the drugs, drugs come in because people want them. It won't stop the illegals, as as far as I know the majority of illegals come in via air and overstay. There has been very little in the way of statistics to show that illegals are the root cause of crime in the US.

A lot has been said about the DNC holding the payments to US Military hostage for DACA but exactly the same could be said of Trump and the wall. They already have significant resources to stop illegal immigration from Mexico and the numbers were already dropping.

So will a wall work? Yeah in the short term it will (and one could argue that simply Trumps rethoric and the anti immigrant stance by many in the US will have a bigger effect at no cost) but it has created serious issues between US and Mexico and that could end up costing many times the cost of dealing with illegal immigration.

And all the while Trump is solely focused on this, he is paying no attention to the vast array of other problems that are hurting the US. Imagine what $20bn could do to regenerate an inner city, or Detroit. Or $20bn to help education standards. Or gun control. Or even give that to the vets he says he loves.

It is the ultimate strawman argument. Trump highlights a problem nobody really had an issue with. He then explains that that problem is the cause of all the other problems, and then he provides a solution to a problem that never existed and uses the fact that he was the 1st to solve the problem as proof that he is the best to solve it. He then forgets all other problems to focus on this one problem, not because he really believes it but its a way to keep power and so its worth it to spend vast amounts of money to help him out. Why, when he has consistently lied about Mexico paying for the wall, are people even still listening to him about the wall?

Really Interested

Noel82 wrote: »

330 miles, Israels is expected to reach 450. The US wall would be roughly 4 times longer - a huge undertaking and I'm in agreement with that point you're subtly trying to make. Fact remains that evidence strongly suggests walls, fences, barriers whatever you want to call them that are actively monitored and maintained are highly effective at combating illegal immigration. When the cost is weighted against the long term benefits the decision is an easy one for me.

USA currently has in excess of 700 miles of fencing. Can you give any example of a 2000 mile border protected by a wall?

Hungary according to this article is 155km https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.politico.eu/article/hungary-orban-border-fence-migrants-refugees-second-is-finished-says/amp/

Israel on the other hand according to this article http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/feb/13/ron-johnson/border-fence-israel-cut-illegal-immigration-99-per/

Not so good “But Israel and the United States’ southern borders are significantly different.

The Israel-Egypt border fence is about 150 miles.

The U.S.-Mexico border is nearly 2,000 miles”

Much easier to protect a few hundred miles than 2000 with each end ending in the ocean and a large river in the middle!

SkepticQuark

Noel82 wrote: »

330 miles, Israels is expected to reach 450. The US wall would be roughly 4 times longer - a huge undertaking and I'm in agreement with that point you're subtly trying to make. Fact remains that evidence strongly suggests walls, fences, barriers whatever you want to call them that are actively monitored and maintained are highly effective at combating illegal immigration. When the cost is weighted against the long term benefits the decision is an easy one for me.

Except for the fact, the US border with Mexico can't be effectively monitored like that realistically now can it? If it could it already would be and a "wall" that's actually a part wall, part repaired fence and part nothing won't change that.

I'll wait for a "but the dems blah blah" but the Dems have never been against increased spending for frivolous things, just look at the military budget.

StringerBell

Theres also tunnels, the feckin water to cross, not to mention that net migration to the US from Mexico is below zero.

BabyCheeses

Noel82 wrote: »

330 miles, Israels is expected to reach 450. The US wall would be roughly 4 times longer - a huge undertaking and I'm in agreement with that point you're subtly trying to make. Fact remains that evidence strongly suggests walls, fences, barriers whatever you want to call them that are actively monitored and maintained are highly effective at combating illegal immigration. When the cost is weighted against the long term benefits the decision is an easy one for me.

They are also very expensive, I have yet to see anyone explain the benefits of the wall vs other means of immigration control.

Surprisingly I see a lack of numbers from anyone supporting the wall. And no, talking about walls in countries that the president would call "****holes" doesn't count. Nobody wants to go to Hungary.

Noel82

Really Interested wrote: »

USA currently has in excess of 700 miles of fencing. Can you give any example of a 2000 mile border protected by a wall?

Fencing is only part of it. If the entire border is not actively monitored by security cameras and heat seeking systems or whatever else to alert authorities it serves little purpose other than the assailant to find a gap miles along and walk through. If the fencing was actually a deterrent how it is that so many illegals who have committed felonies have crossed the border so easily multiple times. There's countless examples of news stories where an illegal committed a serious crime only to find out he's been deported multiple times.

The highlighted bit, you can only by what's available, and all available data suggests they are effective. It's not an argument based on trends or statistics to say, "Yeah it works on lesser borders but if you can't show me a larger distance then your point is moot". That is disingenuous at best. It would take more man power to cover longer distances but that doesn't suggest it would be any less effective, higher costs certainty, but suggesting that it would be less effective doesn't make sense to me. If the proper resources were provided, why would a longer wall be less effective than a shorter one?

The 500mile figure for Israel came from between Israel and the west bank.

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2011/apr/23/mark-thomas-rambling-israel-barrier

Professor Moriarty

Noel82 wrote: »

Fencing is only part of it. If the entire border is not actively monitored by security cameras and heat seeking systems or whatever else to alert authorities it serves little purpose other than the assailant to find a gap miles along and walk through. If the fencing was actually a deterrent how it is that so many illegals who have committed felonies have crossed the border so easily multiple times. There's countless examples of news stories where an illegal committed a serious crime only to find out he's been deported multiple times.

The highlighted bit, you can only by what's available, and all available data suggests they are effective. It's not an argument based on trends or statistics to say, "Yeah it works on lesser borders but if you can't show me a larger distance then your point is moot". That is disingenuous at best. It would take more man power to cover longer distances but that doesn't suggest it would be any less effective, higher costs certainty, but suggesting that it would be less effective doesn't make sense to me. If the proper resources were provided, why would a longer wall be less effective than a shorter one?

The 500mile figure for Israel came from between Israel and the west bank.

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2011/apr/23/mark-thomas-rambling-israel-barrier

60% of Americans oppose the wall with only 37% supporting its construction. For good reason, as it will cost $21 billion according to Homeland Security. That figure does not include maintenance, personnel and land acquisition costs. However, the fact remains that it won't work.

So, at best, it's Trump's version of Ozymandias's pointless attempt at self-aggrandisement. At worst, it's a nasty and reactionary red herring while he undermines American democracy. Whichever it is, it won't happen.

Overheal

The cost doesn’t seem to be worth it to me. The impetus for it is a small subset of anecdotal stories about freak instances of illegal immigrants being deported multiple times, committing crimes, etc. - yet there will always be anecdotes. Always the workaround. The workaround is always more economical too. But the US doesn’t get that. That’s why we drop $250k bombs on ramshackle Ford F-150s in the middle of the desert. It’s why your $20M per mile border wall will be ‘trumped by a $20 rope or a $2000 T-shirt cannon that fires drugs. But whatever, this is the social entitlement spending that conservatives want. They scoff at food stamps for Americans that go to bed starving but no let’s build a giant ****-off wall and drop exploding tax dollars on trucks in the desert.

I think ultimately the agreement the GOP might actually get passed should focus on giving the DREAMers that already live here in the US a real chance at legal residency if not citizenship, while taking measures to ensure we don’t have a continuous stream of illegal immigration: that should take the same approach companies learned about computer piracy. Piracy only goes away when the legal option is the easy option. Making it easier to go through immigration steps is the surest way to ensure immigrants pick the legal option, or other factors will continue driving them down the illegal route.

Peregrinus

Manic Moran wrote: »

The fact that Mexicans in particular are averse to the wall indicates that it is going to have some effect. If the US wants to waste its money, no skin off Mexico's nose.

Some effect, but not necessarily the effect that Trump and his supporters believe or assume.

Taken with other things that Trump has said about Mexicans - I don't have to remind you - the wall amounts to a giant, permanent, physical "Fúck you!" to Mexico and Mexicans. Naturally they are offended, and voluble about it. But this doesn't mean that the wall makes any sense at all, or has any utility, as border control infrastructure.

I made a poll about Trump's tariffs on solar.

New poll added below.

Peregrinus

Deleted User wrote: »

I made a poll about Trump's tariffs on solar.

http://www.strawpoll.me/14908240/r

You frame the question in a way that presumes the tarriffs are intended to, and/or actually will, benefit "America's solar industry".

That seems a bit tendentious. It's not all all obvious that the tarriffs will benefit domestic producers of solar panels, and it will certainly harm the wider solar industry in the US. The Solar Energy Industries Association is projecting tens of thousands of job losses.

If there's a beneficiary in the US, it will be the fossil fuel industries against which solar industry competes. And, I would have thought, this is almost certain the motivation of Trump and his backers.

Peregrinus

Peregrinus wrote: »

You frame the question in a way that presumes the tarriffs are intended to, and/or actually will, benefit "America's solar industry".

That seems a bit tendentious. It's not all all obvious that the tarriffs will benefit domestic producers of solar panels, and it will certainly harm the wider solar industry in the US. The Solar Energy Industries Association is projecting tens of thousands of job losses.

If there's a beneficiary in the US, it will be the fossil fuel industries against which solar industry competes. And, I would have thought, this is almost certain the motivation of Trump and his backers.

Here you go: http://www.strawpoll.me/14908299

Akrasia

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I made a poll about Trump's tariffs on solar.

New poll added below.

Its a terrible poll. First of all, tariffs aren't the only form of protectionism. Trump could choose to compete by offering tax breaks, subsidies or grants to US pv manufacturers to keep them competitive which would be much more effective at growing the industry and might push the US into a becoming a leading exporter. What he has done is little more than another subsidy for oil gas and Coal designed to keep solar power uncompetitive and it's reason number 3,165,432 why Trump is histories greatest monster

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Its a terrible poll. First of all, tariffs aren't the only form of protectionism. Trump could choose to compete by offering tax breaks, subsidies or grants to US pv manufacturers to keep them competitive which would be much more effective at growing the industry and might push the US into a becoming a leading exporter. What he has done is little more than another subsidy for oil gas and Coal designed to keep solar power uncompetitive

It's a poll on what just happened. And you'd find similar on the biggest sites in the world.


Anyways, I added a new poll. Just pick one or more answers. Or better yet, make a new poll. Together we can make polls great again.

Akrasia wrote: »

it's reason number 3,165,432 why Trump is histories greatest monster

Can you please but this as your signature? It's hilarious. I'd have said Pol Pot or someone who killed millions but whatever.

circadian

Trump hindering the renewable energy sector is probably his worst move in an economic sense, and he's made a lot of bad decisions.

I've been to China on a number of occasions and from 2010 onwards there has been a very, very noticeable drive towards wind, solar and water technologies. Yes China has a problem with pollution but they are also the largest adapter and producer of renewable technologies. This is a transitional period, within 10 years it'll be a very different picture.

Trump on the other hand has gone out of his way to hinder the same sector and at the same time throw out the red herring that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy to boost their exports.

He has literally gifted China the next big energy sector, worth an unimaginable amount of money in the long run. If I were an American, this would be a major sticking point for me.

circadian

circadian wrote: »

Trump hindering the renewable energy sector is probably his worst move in an economic sense, and he's made a lot of bad decisions.

I've been to China on a number of occasions and from 2010 onwards there has been a very, very noticeable drive towards wind, solar and water technologies. Yes China has a problem with pollution but they are also the largest adapter and producer of renewable technologies. This is a transitional period, within 10 years it'll be a very different picture.

Trump on the other hand has gone out of his way to hinder the same sector and at the same time throw out the red herring that climate change is a Chinese conspiracy to boost their exports.

He has literally gifted China the next big energy sector, worth an unimaginable amount of money in the long run. If I were an American, this would be a major sticking point for me.

How did he do that?

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How did he do that?

Clean coal .....


And murdering the solar industry in the US

Overheal

Considering the solar industry itself has warned the tariff could trigger 23,000 job losses this year its safe to say that this might not be the best way to grow America’s solar industry.

In the short term it will cause the global market of solar panels to be flooded with the supply no longer being demanded from the US, and other countries will achieve greater energy independence as a result. China could even repurpose the panels themselves to reinvest in making their manufacturing centers even more cost effective.