The liberal cities comment and refusing to admit that most illegal immigrants are overstays thus a wall is ridiculous to make the centerpiece of immigration policy. That just indicates you are not interested in empirical discussions. So just as you are making assumptions on my statements, I am making assumptions on yours.
I have not refused to admit it…I’ve no problems with tackling the issue on all fronts.
What a load of BS. I’m out. I was until you pulled out your clear stance on mine that I don’t want to have one. How can I talk to a person who has already made up his mind about my stance that wont change? Why did you even continue to talk to me if that’s your belief? IDK why you’ve become this way. It’s rude and not productive to a conversation.
Ok then answer this honestly. If tackling an issue on all fronts, is a wall the most effective of all those methods? Does it warrant being the centerpiece of immigration policy and diverting most resources to that end?
I think we all know the answer to this. And efficacy is not the goal. No, the wall serves an entirely different purpose than that. Curtailing illegal immigration is not the reason the wall is the centerpiece.
You can interpret what I say however you wish. My purpose is to present a balanced argument not to convince you. And when others see you are relying on identity and bumper sticker politics, such as cities are bad because they’re run by liberals, then hopefully they will see through that. If someone resorts to those tactics, then yes of course I would have assumptions about where they are coming from. It’s the same if you use MSM, TDS, Deep State etc. We all know those words are meant to push an agenda of identity politics and are not rooted in the much more complex and nuanced real world. So if you can stick to facts, policy etc. then you won’t be offended by anything I have to say.
You do the same.
This is a liberal talking point so not sure why you get to make it and try to excuse it when I threw some back you went full YOURE PARROTING TUCKER! on me.
I don’t know, I’ve mentioned I have my doubts previously. Not to you, but I’ve said it. But I stand by the effort to make illegal border crossings more difficult with a wall. I really do. It doesn’t mean I don’t think other methods shouldnt be tried and other areas should be tackled.
As for 2008 and Obama, yes, I misspoke on the timeline. It’s more like 2012 once DACA rolled in. I think Obama had some real push back on his deportation, and the democrats knew they needed the latino vote. I don’t necessarily have an issue with path to citizenship plan. But answer me this since I answered your question, has the democrats been willing to push hard core deterrents of illegal immigration? I don’t see it, they almost protect it with things like sanctuary cities.
I would support a pathway to citizenship plan if it came with a plan to make illegal immigration down to zero (obviously not possible like any illegal activity, but that should be the goal) I’ve yet to seen the democrats come out and push that line on immigration. I don’t think they will, they won’t win the latino vote they depend on this year.
I am commenting on a trend with conservative voters accepting whatever Trump says because it feels good at the time and not following through when he doesn’t deliver. He is not held accountable. That is different than saying something is terrible simply for the fact thats it run by conservatives. That’s using ideology as your sole lens to interpret the world. Its a gross over simplification with the intent of scoring political points.
N Korea
There’s a reason we don’t hug dictators - because it’s ineffective. They are now more emboldened than they were before.
Iran
What did the threats do? Felt good at the time but we are in a worse spot with Iran now than when we started.
Mexico
Building a wall surely sounded good. But is that really the best way to use our resources? You said you don’t know but we all know. It’s obvious.
No they have not and I don’t expect them to. The approach with Trump is what I criticize most. For someone who claims to be a master negotiator, threatening and yelling are not the most effective means. Incentives work better than deterrents in my opinion.
Same thing for trade. Have Democrats been tough on China by threatening them with a trade war? No instead they focus on leveraging our allies against China rather than empty threats. In my opinion that is more effective. The smarter way is not always the easiest to put on a bumper sticker. Something that conservatives are good at and Democrats are terrible at.
Another example of an attempt to divide cities vs rural, left vs right. It’s so blatant yet seems to be encouraged.
Putting families in cages will certainly not make them break for Trump. I don’t think “what have you go to lose?” will work here.
1 Like
How is this a divide? Sanctuary cities are the opposite of being tough on illegal immigration, which was my point. Nothing to do with cities or rural.
Same reason the wall is meant to create division. Is focusing on sanctuary cities the best use of our time? There is no evidence to show that sanctuary policies have any effect on crime and sanctuary cities perform better economically than non-sanctuary cities.
Yet how much time do conservatives spend on this issue even though there is no impact on crime? Why single out cities and threaten to remove federal funding? Hint: Identity politics!
Let’s pit urban vs. rural, right vs. left, and anything and everything negative that happens in a city we can reinforce that narrative of division by saying “See it’s because cities are run by liberals!” As you just did.
What? I didn’t say any of this…this has nothing to do with city vs rural or identity. I think you are so fixed on the idea I must be rooted in identity politics thats all you see now when I say something. I never made the connection between sanctuary cities increase crime or whatever you said.
I said sanctuary cities (some of them are not really like metropolitan cities) are the opposite of being tough on illegal immigration. That is all I said about them. If it makes you feel happier, I meant to encompass states and counties as well. This has nothing to do with cities vs rural. Some of the counties do not have “cities”.
Really? Ok then what’s the point of calling out one city in a country of 300M people? How is that relevant? You called out cities being run by liberals and cities not being tough on immigration. So there’s no connection?
I never heard the term sanctuary city prior to Trump. There are clear motivations to divide by focusing on this so much. Whether or not you acknowledge it doesn’t matter, since it is clear why conservative media spends so much time talking about sanctuary cities.
It’s not one city, there are states and counties.
I said some of the cities ran by democrats, not all cities, have issues. I didn’t mention immigration when I said that.
And I said cities that are sanctuary cities (as I’ve said I meant to encompass states and counties) are the opposite of being tough on immigration.
Again, this has nothing to do with city vs rural…I just said it doesn’t if it wasn’t clear. So why do you keep insisting my intent, it’s now becoming rude.
I can only make assumptions based on what you tell me. Why do we have to ignore common sense in order to have a discussion? Is there really any question as to how the GOP is using “sanctuary cities” to create further division? Is there any doubt that there are other motivations behind making a wall the centerpiece of a campaign since it’s so clear it would not be the most effective?
Whether or not you have the same intent is up to you, but you can’t fault me for assuming that is your intent when you so willingly use the same loaded terms and stereotypes conservative media does.
I just told you 2x I didn’t mean it as city vs rural. This is the 3rd. I’m not sure why you keep insisting. I can understand if that’s what you thought as communication mistakes happen, but I made it clear now.
You still don’t seem to understand that this is a deliberate strategy by the GOP to create another wedge issue. It plays along well with cities are terrible because they are run by liberals which is where you started. I get it you don’t mean to create division, and you don’t intend that.
But you should recognize that is how it’s being used. Using sanctuary cities to argue federal immigration, doesn’t make any sense to me other than if it is purely about identity politics.
1 Like
It’s also counties and states as I’ve mentioned. It’s not all cities as in urban cities. They certainly are an issue as they create a very conflicting contradiction with the laws of the land. I think you’re reading too much into “cities”
Are you suggesting, lets just say the word territories since you are caught up with the word city, they do not directly oppose federal laws as sanctuaries for illegal immigrants to skirt deportation?
I’m saying we don’t devote additional federal resources to something that is not a growing problem by constructing detention camps, and attempting to purge all illegal immigrants through arguably inhumane practices. Is it any surprise that cities, counties, states whatever would oppose? We’re talking about misdemeanors here not felonies so put that into perspective regarding the amount of resources we are putting towards this.
The real question is- why now? Why is this the centerpiece of 2016 for Republicans when illegal immigration was on the decline? What’s the real reason? It’s certainly not a growing problem and not the biggest problem facing the country.
Now I would expect if you take issue with cities not following the federal govt, that you would also take issue with 2nd amendment sanctuary cities, or State marijuana laws, or the same response to resist immigration policy from republican states during Obama (Jan Brewer in Arizona). If you have a problem with one, you should have a problem with all if that’s what concerns you.
I do have problems with all of them. Some I think federal law should change, some I think it’s the other way around. It is generally a problem when a jurisdiction is incompatible with the laws of the land. Something should be changed.
Deportations must happen to show we are serious about enforcing immigration laws. I’m not going the change my stance on that. It sends the wrong message if we do not. The US is a country of wealth, people will want to come illegally if they feel their chances of being deported is low.
I will however support DACA and some reasonable rights to citizenship pathways if both sides can come together and actually strictly enforce immigration laws and deport illegals. I think that is perfectly reasonable.
I agree with most of that other than deportations need to happen humanely. The way you go about it matters. Putting families in cages? Wrong way. Arbitrarily enforcing deportations regardless of how it impacts/disrupts the community? Wrong way.
Unfortunately, presidents will be forced with this decision until there is structural reform. Obama took the high road and was still more effective than Trump in deportations and immigration. Trump…well we know the result.
So far we only address the supply and not the demand. The industry in this country fully supports and encourages illegal immigration. We have seen labor shortages when immigration enforcement is more strict because of this. There simply are not enough Americans willing to pick fruit all day, milk cows or work in a 110 degree kitchen for $10/hr.
And lastly, we only have so many resources. Where do we focus them? Deporting immigrants without addressing the systemic issues? That sounds like an uphill battle to me.
AFFH = Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, a provision of LBJ’s 1968 Fair Housing Act.
I’ve moved the vid up some so that Sleepy Joe Biden’s (likely unconscious) support of “turbocharging” is presented quickly - after an admittedly long question/frame by Levin, sorry but it’s necessary to understand how this is seen outside urban America.
I’ve talked before about how conservatives may react if Dems sweep government this November (don’t worry, no peaceful rioting, murders, arson will happen), and I mentioned that private roads may be one outcome.
The video presents one reason why: because future Fed spending on roads will, under Dem control, become “turgocharged” to exclude cities/metropolitan statistical areas that choose to opt out of HUD grants. If a city chooses to opt out of HUD (Housing and Urban Development, a cabinet-level position in the Exec) guidelines, they can be sued (now) and if turbocharged they may find themselves unlinked from Interstate highways. Economic islands, as it were.
What the new plan? What did the Obama rule do? I’m generally down with localizing politics and reducing the role and scope of the federal government, but my quick searches didn’t really explain the Obama rule or the newly proposed Biden turbocharged version of it.
1 Like