Trump

[pinstripers]

I do love that the defector was honored, but none of you all have even a little cognitive dissonance over that story in the same speech as the illegal immigration/wall rhetoric?

Let me get this straight:

- Trump wants to limit immigration from "s***hole countries."
- Trump wants to build a wall along our southern border to limit illegal immigration.
- Trump has regularly talked about limiting the number of refugees we allow.
- I hate the terminology because I think it is racist/offensive/whatever else, but North Korea almost certainly qualifies as a "s***hole country" by any measure, right?
- China wants to/has wanted to limit illegal immigration from North Korea - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-18208831

This North Korean defector illegally crossed into China, attempting to escape a terrible situation, and he gets proudly displayed by Trump? That's my side! We're the ones who want to accept immigrants. We're the ones who want to accept refugees. We're the ones who don't want to split up families, and we're the ones opposed to the wall. What kind of bizarro world is this?

You are trying to not understand, and I guess it's working.

[jdshock]

wufan, don't sign me up for the government job where I have to decide if someone's situation is just not quite bad enough to prevent them from being deported. That sounds like a nightmare.

[wufan]

Fair enough.

[ShockTalk]

I probably shouldn't be sticking my nose in this as I'm not that good at expressing myself, but here goes.

Why is there being made a "comparison" of the former North Korean gentleman and immigration to the US? He was a guest and lives in South Korea. I have not heard that he even wants to live in the US as he is very involved in helping other fleeing North Koreans.

How can one compare the situation in North Korea to anywhere else in the world? Any "war" there has been totally lost as well as any sense of individuality. There are no "people" there. They are either robots or cattle. In most of these other countries, people can at least make a reasonable attempt of escape or face no resistance at all to leaving. I'm certain that if North Koreans were allowed to leave, there would be a very strong vetting program to get into the US. With the extremely small number that escape from North Korean, I am also certain that they too would face very strong vetting if they wanted to get into the US, assuming we would take them.

[ShockingButTrue]

Is it just me, or do these progressives come off as hateful, bigoted, mean-spirited, anti-Americans (-ahem- White people). To say they're "playing" politics is a false equivalent, unless it's Dirty Politics!

They mean it:

sourpuss.jpg

Hopefully that FISA memo comes out tomorrow, but I won't believe it 'til I see it. Almost too good to be true. Thoughts?

[Kung Wu]

I do love that the defector was honored, but none of you all have even a little cognitive dissonance over that story in the same speech as the illegal immigration/wall rhetoric?

None at all.

[WuDrWu]

I met a group of Chinese businessmen in Wichita visiting a great local company. One of them picked up a paper and asked, with a child like look "What is this great wall your country keeps talking about?"

The person showing them around from this great Wichita company answered "We've been jealous of your wall for so long we just had to have one of our own!"

Everyone burst into laughter. Surreal. Only in America. #MAGA

[WuDrWu]

Regarding the Democratic response, Chapstickaquiddick or Chappaquiddickstick?

[ShockingButTrue]

******* HillaryBots...

[jdshock]

ShockTalk, I'm making a new post because you don't get notifications for separate replies on a comment thread.

The comparison was only insofar as he illegally crossed into China. If China had caught him, he would've been deported to North Korea. He managed to dodge capture by the Chinese government. We, rightfully I might add, are champions for his cause and celebrating his escape. But, to be clear, what he did was illegal. And if he'd been caught he would've been deported to North Korea.

In the United States, if someone illegally crosses into the US, we would deport them back to their country. If someone is staying here illegally, with family, with a job, with a life here, we would still deport them. Trump has been seeking to reduce the number of refugees we take from war torn and dangerous areas.

I'll even go so far as to suggest he wouldn't have been paraded around at the SOTU if he didn't have the religious freedom portion of his story. But there are lots of places in the world that don't have religious freedom; Syria in particular comes to mind since we're talking about the refugees.

wufan has proposed that the metric for determining if we deport someone is based around how bad the situation is in their home country. Apparently, the idea being that North Korea is a much worse place to be deported to than Mexico. The idea of this makes me pretty uneasy because I like bright lines. I hate the idea that there's some government official who is reading a list of pros and cons thinking "hmm... they've got a democratic election system, but they have serious drug cartels, they have a capitalistic economic system, but this person has no connections/family/etc in the home country... overall, we send 'em back!" But you get that... I mean, I'm talking to folks who are members of the party that spread all kinds of untruths about "death panels," right?

It's tricky because this actually is part of how deportation works now. They do look at these kinds of factors. Trump has just proposed much stricter standards than democrats have proposed recently, so it seems strange to show off this North Korean guy. Or, at a minimum, it seems like a pretty weak effort to try to win back a few votes on this subject.

[ShockingButTrue]

Let's see now; Political Dissident vs. Drug dealers.

There is a law stating immigration is legal, you know?

[Kung Wu]

... despite the optics of Trump's refusal to be firm even a little bit with Russia.

Do you really believe this?

[jdshock]

I think the "liberal media" is overplaying their hand on Trump's behavior with Russia. There are certainly some actions he has taken that have annoyed Russia.

But that's why I called it the optics of it. The perception of not enforcing this law is so, so, so bad. During the Russia investigation, when you know every single move is going to be viewed under a magniscope, why? Why not just follow the law?

And to further answer, I do think he has been "weak" on Russia much more than he's been firm with them.

[Kung Wu]

The optics only look bad to people that presume Trump is guilty.

Weak on Russia relative to Obama?

[jdshock]

Weak on Russia in a climate where we all agree Russia attempted to illegally and maliciously affect the outcome of the 2016 election. A year ago, McConnell warns that Trump better not lift any sanctions, specifically discussing Russia's influence on the election: http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...ssia-sanctions. Six months ago, McConnell supported the new ones that were passed: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...ctions-n771316.

Trump's response to all of that was to act like Russia isn't that bad and Congress was screwing up Russian relations. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...trump-weakness. Now, he won't enact that bill that he signed.

Do you seriously feel the optics look bad to ONLY those who presume Trump is guilty? I feel like they look bad to everybody but those who think Trump could do no wrong. Even to those of us who don't know one way or the other what is going on with Russia.

[WuDrWu]

I'm curious.....and mostly serious, does anyone think there's just a chance that Trump has set everyone up? Drive the left crazy with words and piss off most politicians, with the idea of being a unifier? His twitter account has been unusually quiet. Many of his ideas are far from conservative, but he has the opposition so far out on the limb that the middle seems willing to run to him. It would play to his egotism, getting a majority to back him. Just curious.

I'm going to be so bad, that when I'm just average you're going kill for the chase to get behind me kind of a thing. Just spitballing.

[ShockingButTrue]

Guess who's been outed as a Russian spy now? You guessed it... Nunes :saturn: :saturn: :saturn:

G--D--N HillaryBots. They're everywhere!

[jdshock]

I'm curious.....and mostly serious, does anyone think there's just a chance that Trump has set everyone up? Drive the left crazy with words and piss off most politicians, with the idea of being a unifier? His twitter account has been unusually quiet. Many of his ideas are far from conservative, but he has the opposition so far out on the limb that the middle seems willing to run to him. It would play to his egotism, getting a majority to back him. Just curious.

I'm going to be so bad, that when I'm just average you're going kill for the chase to get behind me kind of a thing. Just spitballing.

There were people in his ear from day one telling him he could be the unifier because he was an outsider. Without a doubt. If we see a new Trump, I think it's more likely that he finally started listening to those folks than it is that he conspired from the beginning to come back to the middle. That said, it's not out of the realm of possibility.

But, c'mon, there's not a new Trump. Every time he gives a speech--that isn't at a rally--we are all left saying "actually, that was pretty good." And every time he stops tweeting for a few days, we're left saying "maybe he can act presidential." But it's not going to last. Today, he already tweeted that he had the most viewers of the SOTU in history, which is undeniably false.

[Kung Wu]

I'm curious.....and mostly serious, does anyone think there's just a chance that Trump has set everyone up? Drive the left crazy with words and piss off most politicians, with the idea of being a unifier? His twitter account has been unusually quiet. Many of his ideas are far from conservative, but he has the opposition so far out on the limb that the middle seems willing to run to him. It would play to his egotism, getting a majority to back him. Just curious.

I'm going to be so bad, that when I'm just average you're going kill for the chase to get behind me kind of a thing. Just spitballing.

72% of independent voters gave Trump an approval on his State of the Union: https://ivn.us/2018/01/31/72-percent...ps-first-sotu/

[ShockTalk]

ShockTalk, I'm making a new post because you don't get notifications for separate replies on a comment thread.

The comparison was only insofar as he illegally crossed into China. If China had caught him, he would've been deported to North Korea. He managed to dodge capture by the Chinese government. We, rightfully I might add, are champions for his cause and celebrating his escape. But, to be clear, what he did was illegal. And if he'd been caught he would've been deported to North Korea.

In the United States, if someone illegally crosses into the US, we would deport them back to their country. If someone is staying here illegally, with family, with a job, with a life here, we would still deport them. Trump has been seeking to reduce the number of refugees we take from war torn and dangerous areas.

I'll even go so far as to suggest he wouldn't have been paraded around at the SOTU if he didn't have the religious freedom portion of his story. But there are lots of places in the world that don't have religious freedom; Syria in particular comes to mind since we're talking about the refugees.

wufan has proposed that the metric for determining if we deport someone is based around how bad the situation is in their home country. Apparently, the idea being that North Korea is a much worse place to be deported to than Mexico. The idea of this makes me pretty uneasy because I like bright lines. I hate the idea that there's some government official who is reading a list of pros and cons thinking "hmm... they've got a democratic election system, but they have serious drug cartels, they have a capitalistic economic system, but this person has no connections/family/etc in the home country... overall, we send 'em back!" But you get that... I mean, I'm talking to folks who are members of the party that spread all kinds of untruths about "death panels," right?

It's tricky because this actually is part of how deportation works now. They do look at these kinds of factors. Trump has just proposed much stricter standards than democrats have proposed recently, so it seems strange to show off this North Korean guy. Or, at a minimum, it seems like a pretty weak effort to try to win back a few votes on this subject.

This reply was what I was afraid of because I lack the skills of debate.

First, let me get something near the end of your reply out of the way. I truly detest all people of any major party being lumped into any and everything that can, truthfully or not, be attributed or attached in any way, to that party. I don't lump all people of a certain major party that they all believe that anyone in the military are the lowest of the low mentally. I hold viewpoints that come from both major parties, but readily admit more from one than the other.

I believe all countries should have guidelines as to entry and how long they stay. Those that break those laws are taking chances, period. The gentleman from North Korea took 2 chances. Not only that he could get out of North Korea, but China as well. I also bet he knew what could be in store for him if he was caught. He doubled down on a high risk hand and won. Illegal immigrants to the United States are doing the same, although at a much lower risk of being caught and/or what's going to be in store for them if there are sent back. Allowing illegal immigrants to not having to play by the rules, IMO, is spitting in the face of every legal immigrant that came to the United States and later became a US citizen.

If we have an abundance of quality jobs for our current citizens, that is one thing, but we do not. That is one reason you're having the UBI discussion. I'm not totally opposed to some fashion of UBI, but if it happens, the next step will be to add anyone that came (or comes) here illegally to those rolls (by making them citizens or otherwise). It will be rewarding illegal activity at the expense of other American citizens. But any more of this is for the other thread.

Personally ( I'm sure the following will need a lot of refinement of my part), I'm for drawing a line in the sand until reasonable guidelines to address illegal immigration and the taking of refuges can be made. Those before the current date, regardless of the guidelines passage date will fall into one category, those after that date will fall under other guidelines not near as generous if they get anything short of deportation. This would be to prevent a "rush" (you better get in before passage).

Just regarding those prior to the set date:

1) Even though I do not believe 2 wrongs make a right (2 illegals have a child and that child is automatically a US citizen), they are US citizens, period.

2) For those that came in under a certain age, I believe those children cannot be held at fault for their parents. Whether they have a job or work history, a lawfully clean slate or not, they be made US citizens. I guess I look at this as our penalty for not addressing this problem sooner.

3) Those between certain ages upon arriving (for example, 15-20), they will fall under generally the same rules as their parents or those who came in over 21 illegally.

4) All others, and basically those in #3, must pass certain guidelines. No serious legal problems. That will get you kicked out, family or not. Beyond that, a special Green Card would be developed that would not necessary follow the same guidelines as current green cards. Generally, any path to citizenship will look at the past as well as the future and may be a longer path than those who come to America legally. This is the illegals penalty and the reward for those that enter legally. They may or may not receive the level of government benefits of current citizens, ever.

I feel it is our governments responsibility to protect and serve its citizens first and foremost. We cannot open our shores at potential expense of our citizens and the future of their children. Any such legal immigration must have this in mind. After the "set date", illegal immigration is not tolerated. We should, however, legally take in all those (even refugees) that can be reasonably be added and supported by within the current economic conditions.

There. I said it. Not asking anyone to poke holes or like any of it. I'm sure I'll even change some parts.

[jdshock]

Appreciate the response, and I wasn't even looking for a reply. I was responding to your question about the comparison between the two. I'm not particularly interested in debating anyone that doesn't want that, so I won't try to poke holes or do a lot of back and forth on it.

[wufan]

You have well articulated insights. No reason to downplay your opinion.

[wufan]

ShockTalk, I'm making a new post because you don't get notifications for separate replies on a comment thread.

The comparison was only insofar as he illegally crossed into China. If China had caught him, he would've been deported to North Korea. He managed to dodge capture by the Chinese government. We, rightfully I might add, are champions for his cause and celebrating his escape. But, to be clear, what he did was illegal. And if he'd been caught he would've been deported to North Korea.

In the United States, if someone illegally crosses into the US, we would deport them back to their country. If someone is staying here illegally, with family, with a job, with a life here, we would still deport them. Trump has been seeking to reduce the number of refugees we take from war torn and dangerous areas.

I'll even go so far as to suggest he wouldn't have been paraded around at the SOTU if he didn't have the religious freedom portion of his story. But there are lots of places in the world that don't have religious freedom; Syria in particular comes to mind since we're talking about the refugees.

wufan has proposed that the metric for determining if we deport someone is based around how bad the situation is in their home country. Apparently, the idea being that North Korea is a much worse place to be deported to than Mexico. The idea of this makes me pretty uneasy because I like bright lines. I hate the idea that there's some government official who is reading a list of pros and cons thinking "hmm... they've got a democratic election system, but they have serious drug cartels, they have a capitalistic economic system, but this person has no connections/family/etc in the home country... overall, we send 'em back!" But you get that... I mean, I'm talking to folks who are members of the party that spread all kinds of untruths about "death panels," right?

It's tricky because this actually is part of how deportation works now. They do look at these kinds of factors. Trump has just proposed much stricter standards than democrats have proposed recently, so it seems strange to show off this North Korean guy. Or, at a minimum, it seems like a pretty weak effort to try to win back a few votes on this subject.

jdshock i’m not sure if our differences are philosophical (open vs closed border), emotional (empathy for the other vs empathy for own), or just degree (more vs few). Any thoughts?

I’m for controlled legal immigration that is both merit based and need based. There should be a number (actual number is quite debatable) we allow in based on what’s best for the country and a percentage should be merit and a percentage should be need.

Ilegal immigration should be stopped at the border (need strong security) now so we can address the productive illeagals by giving them a path to citizenship.

For those that that we do allow citizenship, their immediate family (wife/children) is also allowed citizenship and extended family gets no preference.

[jdshock]

Probably a little bit of all of these. I'm not sure I have a ton of policy ideas on immigration other than I tend to think the current administration is taking a harder line stance than I'd take, so it seems strange that the republicans would champion a sob story when pretty clearly it's liberals who want more folks like the defector in the US.

[WstateU]

nm