Could somebody address this issue with 'the wall'?

Wow - quick flip flop!!

But, controlling the border IS part of the bipartisan plan passed by the Senate in 2013!

I think you don't know what's going on with this issue.

And, not even YOU believe your ideas about plans.

 

This was addressed to spiritgide in post 399.

Nothing from spiritgide. He is a Trump supporter who prefers talking about Obama and the Democrats. Rarely does he get involved with what Trump does and says.

 

I said before- I hadn't read the proposal you say was offered. I do know that if the dems backed it, there is damn little chance it was a solid plan. I believe that because that is their track record.
When I look at all the "plans" being proposed right now,for a multitude of issues. Not one of them is realistic, achievable, financially practical- and for the most part, not even sane. And they're bragging them.
There's no flip flop. A plan that can't be implemented in not a functional idea- it's window dressing. Posturing. BS. Propaganda.

A real plan is a solution that can work. To make ANY plan (except giving up) work, you must be in control of the issue you plan to regulate.

 

You absolutely DID flip flop.

You claimed there was no way to create a plan until the problem was solved!!! (Yes, I know how crazy that sounds.) Why would there even be a need for a plan if the problem were solved? Do you know what a plan is for?

NOW your argument is that it "must be" bad (though you don't know JACK about it) because Dems were involved. HOWEVER, I pointed out that it was a BIPARTISAN bill, supported by Republicans such as Rubio who were part of the group who created it. And, I pointed out that it would have passed the REPUBLICAN House if the speaker hadn't refused to allow it to come to a vote.

And, what the HELL makes you think that bill couldn't be implemented TODAY???

How can you make all these claims about that bill when you don't even know what was in it, how it was created or who supported it???

 

I'm looking back to see what you got twisted around to base that on. It appears to be this, from my post 4154-

"But- before you can implement a plan, you must have an orderly control."
Are you confused about the difference between creation of a plan and implementation of a plan?

If so, you would certainly be on the left-thinkers train.

 

??
I've never heard of anyone who thought "orderly control" of a national level problem can not be achieved by planned action.

Unplanned responses have a long and well known record of failure.

 

That would be like the war on drugs plan that has been going on for 50 years now, and is losing ground?

We're losing because we don't have control of the flow of drugs. The plan- is a bad plan, for that reason.... but we continue it because it is the "good fight".
What if there were a plan that would puts a stop to the cartel drug smugglers in a month or two- stop them cold, dead in there tracks.

Possible? Of course. The government would have to go into the business of providing those drugs at the cost of production- totally remove the profit motive. That is the only motive the cartels have.
Then- we would have control of the flow of addictive drugs, with the exception of the pharma produced opiods, and that too could be put under the umbrella.
Because we would have a way to control....
Then- we could stop the contaminated drugs, control things like fentanyl content and the resulting deaths.
Then, we would know who the addicts were and be able to provide programs for more of them.
Then, we would no longer have people hijacking cars, becoming prostitutes and burglarizing homes to pay for their drug habits.
Then, we would no longer have drug-related murders and gang wars.
A vast array of social ills resulting from addictive drugs could be dealt with directly and effectively.

Of course, if we did that- Oh My God, we would be the drug dealers. The bad guys. Even with the best of intentions and real success, that is just too much. Better that 100K people die each year.

Compare the two scenarios and what has already happened long-term with the first and present plan.
What would the long-term be with the alternative?
It doesn't matter of course, because despite the fact that plans one is an ongoing disaster and plan two would get the job done- but it's just not acceptable.

Plans count. Some of them are totally stupid and destined to fail. But you can't get results with a plan until you have control of the elements involved.

 

Yes. We don't have a working plan for achieving the level of success we want against what we (including myself) see as a drug problem.

The plan we've been working on has had very serious and identifiable problems.

That absolutely does NOT mean that there is no better plan or that we have to wait for things to get better before we apply thought to this problem.

And, yes, plans do have to be limited to acceptable methods. We have a constitution, for example.

Today, we DO have a plan concerning immigration.

It's just the most profoundly stupid plan one can imagine. So, the fact that it doesn't work and imposes heinous behavior even against CHILDREN makes it TOTALLY unacceptable.

We need the plan to be fixed. And, the bipartisan plan of 2013 (created by a committee of Republicans and Democrats) remains as a solid plan that both Republicans and Democrats have supported

Suggesting we have to sit around and witness more years of the existing failure is preposterous.

 

You are aware of course that the plan in effect today is mostly Obama's craftsmanship?

I'm all for a working plan. My entire point is that a working plan you can't implement because you lack control is NOT a valid plan.
It's like saying I plan to fly to England- but I don't have a plane.

Find a way to get people seeking immigration to apply at the embassies and border ports of entry, and you have a plan. So long as they ignore that request and give you the finger while they walk in the open back door, you don't.

 

FALSE, the plan in place predates Obama. Obama wanted to sign the 2013 bipartisan immigration bill that passed the Senate.

Your "plan to fly" analogy just points out how to identify a plan that isn't going to succeed. If you have a plan to fly, then you certainly have a solution for air travel.

So, your last paragraph is a clear FAIL.

The 2013 bipartisan immigration plan IS a plan.

Why have you not read it??? Do you actually not care about immigration?

 

Obama made changes that in particular resulted in a huge flood of asylum claims. Trump reversed Obama's loophole, and re-instated previous existing law. Dems screamed bloody murder, and seem to think no law they don't like need be enforced.

IF we had plans that were valid, do you really think all the BullS--t that our government botches up and has to patch over and over would be happening? Politicians- congress in particular- is like control by a commitee of idiots. They never come up with good plans. Everything is so compromised it has to have life support in short order. Why do you suppose all these half-assed plans were not identified as such? Does a fifty-year failed war on drugs teach our congress nothing?

Now if you know of a good way to solve the border crisis- just lay it down. We would all like to see how you are going to control illegals crossing the border without having control of the border.

 

More technology, better surveillance and more dogs at the border is a good start. Again though without the physical wall, it doesn't matter. Also, "the kids in cages" policy started under Obama. So stop blaming Trump for that.

 

Which of course has nothing to do with Mexico paying for the wall.

 

As Trump said - 'one way or another'. Mexico is paying for the wall.

 

That doesn’t actually mean that is what’s happening. You do realize that, right?

 

I know exactly what is happening and I know exactly what Trump said. Do you actually believe that Trump meant that Mexico would write a check ???

 

In an April 2016 memo, Trump’s campaign outlined the steps he could take to get Mexico to pay for the wall.

"It's an easy decision for Mexico: make a one-time payment of $5-10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year," the memo said.

 

It helps to actually read the document that you post.

But why would you actually believe that Trump believed that Mexico would write a check.

 

Did you read the document that you quoted ???

 

Yes. Hence the quote of the one-time payment of $5-10 billion.

 

What happens on day 2, day 3, day 4, ... ???

 

What does that matter? You claimed Trump never said anything about Mexico "writing a check". What the hell do you think a one-time payment of $5-10 billion is???

 

The truth matters.

 

And yet you deny it. Cool