Trump knocks border wall reports, insists Mexico will pay – eventually

I would love it if the republican establishment (of which Trump is not a part) would treat the fat cat Chamber of Commerce types like the hypocritical scum that they are.
But they (establishment and high placed businessmen) are one in the same.

But illegals are an overall drag on the economy so the old lie that we cannot do without them is a can of crap and they are nothing more than WalMart workers with an accent that have descended on the country by the millions....yeah, they will mow your lawn real cheap but when ALL the costs of illegals are added up
(like with Wal Mart workers) the bargains just don't exist.
We pay for them one way or the other.

 

at the moment though the relationship is parasitic for both the workers and the US citizens and the relationship needs to be and can be symbiotic.That is possible with legal immigration and border enforcement along with Visas and enforcement. Both countries can benefit, that is what deals and negotiations are for

 

I have no problem with having legal immigration. The problem I see, is the door for the U.S. only swings open one way. Let's not pretend illegal immigration is a problem, when the enablers who are U.S. born, and U.S. citizens, are the crust of the problem who hire the illegals to start with. They invented this problem. They are the source of the problem.They should be the one's who should pay and fix the problem, if the U.S. really wants it fixed.

 

I base my conclusion that your radical dogma is out of line with most Americans upon the public surveys that I have cited, and your dependence upon ideologically extreme sources. If you have any reputable surveys that significantly differ, or any reliable sources that reflect your position, please provide them.

You can indulge your fixation with your imaginary "leftists" and attribute "fake woe" to your "Nazis", but you cannot escape the cogent principle: The federal government cannot commandeer and re-assign local law enforcement agencies, diverting them from their assigned responsibilities. The US Constitution says so.

State and local authorities should not impede the feds in fulfilling their mission; neither should the feds interfere and distract from the responsibilities of state and local authorities for their jurisdictions.

Local law enforcement pursues, apprehends, prosecutes, and incarcerates murderers, rapists, and arsonists. If the federal government targets any of those individuals for tax evasion, illegal residency, or other federal crimes, local authorities do not interfere.

Yes, it was not the duty of local, Amsterdam police to inform the national regime then controlling Holland of her status or presence.

Your dishonest ad hominem attack exposes your desperation. I have said nothing whatsoever regarding law enforcement's responsibility to keep the citizenry safe from predators, regardless of their legal status, race, religion, gender, age, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Quite the contrary, I enthusiastically support all such predators being interdicted with equal zeal by local authorities.

Despite the hyperbole calculated to provoke nativist hysteria, there is no significant disparity between legal and illegal residents of the US in the percentage of criminals. Several studies have concluded that evidence does not support the myth that undocumented immigrants commit a disproportionate share of crime.

“There’s no way I can mess with the numbers to get a different conclusion,” said Alex Nowrasteh, immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute.

You are upset that my understanding of the matter is in line with that of most folks. You are entitled to your aberrant view, but don't expect your phony claims to be effective in changing the American public's opinion in the matter.


.

 

What "drag on the economy" are you talking about? As far as I know, every penny they make, goes into spending, which is a huge lift for small businesses.

 

Before and after. I can afford to.

 

Yes to all of the above. Of course, it'll take someone with brass balls, and we're lucky to have Trump at the helm.

 

Right, so it's only one thousand miles then. Build a 20 foot wall and illegals will use a 21 foot ladder. Brilliant use of your money.

 

Much of it goes back to their families in Mexico. It also lowers wages

 

I have never seen a single poll where Americans approve of illegal immigration. Have you?
Polls that cite what people want to do with the ones that are here now are irrelevant in this context are therefore not worth consideration.
And, again, whether I am "in step" with popular opinion or not is also irrelevant when it comes to the issue of sanctuary cities although I am very much in the majority of opinion on that issue, since you insist on making this a popularity contest, just so you know. https://www.numbersusa.com/news/poll-american-voters-oppose-sanctuary-cities

Once more, no local police agency is being taken over by federal immigration officers for the purpose of
finding and purging communities of illegal aliens. So no matter how many times you cite this absurd fallacy, it still remains untrue.

Ideally, and undoubtedly under Trump, state and local law enforcement will work with federal agents informing them of illegal alien criminals and holding them for deportation by those agents in serious instances (just like it's supposed to happen) but that's nothing like the hoary whoppers you are trying to pass off as fact here. Why not stop with the disinformation?

That's 100% wrong (let's not be unpleasant and call it a lie, but that's just what it is) and I suggest you look at the two notorious cases from San Francisco I cited (Kathryn Steinle and the Balogna family) to see where city officials, citing sanctuary policy, hid and obfuscated the very presence of a dangerous M-13 gang member scheduled for deportation (in the case of the Balognas) and an illegal felon hiding in SF because he'd already been deported five separate times for serious offenses (in the case of Kathryn Steinle) involving the manufacture and transfer for sale of heroin. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Kathryn_Steinle

In both cases (Edwin Ramos and Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez) SF sanctuary policy prevented handing violent felons over to ICE agents even though they represented a threat to others simply because they would not cooperate with the federal government in deporting these people out of the nation.
So five innocent people wind up dead because the SF Board of Supervisors would rather put other people's lives in jeopardy rather than help deport dangerous
thugs here illegally. Non cooperation with federal agencies is literally more important to San Francisco than the lives of their citizens....and you seem to agree. Give yourself a big hug and round of applause.

Wow! I'm sure it was their duty under their Nazi occupiers but anything to obfuscate, I suppose. Once more, this is irrelevant.

Do you really? Because your
obvious infatuation with ignoring federal immigration law to please your sad, morally bankrupt political agenda says you don't. And it says you side with
slimy sanctuary city politicians who hide the very presence of all illegals, law abiding and not, in their precious fiefdoms because to inform federal authorities of their presence would be a violation of their own policies.
Therefore violent felons are free to roam their streets (like Edwin Ramos and Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez did) until their criminal acts cannot be ignored, even by the gutless politicians who shielded them. How hollow your words are when measured in real terms with reality.

Whether illegals commit more or less crimes is irrelevant.
We have all the native born criminals we can handle, thanks anyway. We don't need any more, believe it or not.

The fact that we would import them from Mexico (we don't exactly get the cream of Mexican society among the people that sneak across our borders like thieves in the night) and then shield them from deportation in sanctuary cities all across the nation, in a senseless act of indifference to our native citizenry, seems to have escaped your mighty intellectual grasp... unless you think taking Mexican and Central American felons into the loving bosom of America is a good idea (which you seem to do, based on your approval of sanctuary policy).

 

Trump will never run for President - oops
Trump will never win the nomination - oops
Trump will never win the election - oops
Trump will never build the wall - oops
Trump will never get Mexico to pay for it - (any bets?)

 

I have never suggested that they do.

Surveys of Americans repeatedly confirm their attitudes on the issue to be along these lines:

No, local law enforcement does pursue, apprehend, prosecute, and incarcerates murderers, rapists, and arsonists. Do all jurisdictions achieve a flawless record of apprehending, prosecuting, and incarcerating murderers, rapists, and arsonists, regardless of their residency status? Certainly not. I could cherry pick an example of a bona fide American citizen committing horrific crimes after local authorities failed to interdict his depraved behaviour, but to pretend that he is a representative case would be ludicrous.

There is no credible data that the rate of criminals amongst the undocumented is much different from among the documented. Most folks are decent and hard working, and fixating on the exceptions does not indict the vast majority in either case.

 

I already saw your poll.

Since you are merely re-spewing out your talking points I will re-post out this: https://www.city-journal.org/html/illegal-alien-crime-wave-12492.html
...which details how known criminal gang members are walking the streets of L,A. and New York (in this example) as free as birds yet police can do nothing about them because to deport them would be a crime itself against sanctuary city policy (not that you will read it this time either).
So in sanctuary cities (the point of it all) police are unable to touch known criminals until they inevitably kill, rape or rob again. This is what you defend, and not very well, either.

Continuing your theme of repeating yourself I already commented on why we don't need to import more criminals into this country regardless of how virtuous the bulk of illegal immigrants may or may not be (forgetting for the moment that ALL illegals are criminals by virtue of being here and the subject of theft from the state, by means of welfare, food stamp fraud, etc. isn't even considered yet it is pervasive and extensive http://cis.org/Cost-Welfare-Immigrant-Native-Households).

So when Mrs. Gomez comes into county welfare offices now in the Trump era with her brood of dependents behind her (old and young) looking for a free handout from the state (free to her, of course) the bilingual social worker handling her case will no longer be barred from asking about her immigration status
because sanctuary policies have been rejected.
Crime doesn't just happen on the street at the barrel of a gun...it happens all the time as the native taxpaying
citizens of a nation are robbed daily with the help of duplicitous quislings bureaucrats and I would say the very first question we should be asking of people
that want legal status is how many laws have you violated remembering theft by fraud is a crime too.

Your arguments, no matter how often you make them, fall onto deaf ears because they are defective, simplistic and just plain wrong. Thankfully we have a president now who will do something about the problem of an illegal freeloader class, supported by an already over burdened middle class, exclusively for
the convenience of the upper classes of both parties alike. Feel free to take in a family or two of illegals since you seem to like them so much.

 

You have posted a link to a right wing source, thirteen years out of date, that spins its ideological bias concerning conditions in the US after the Dubya's first term in office.

The truth is that the violent crime rate in the US peaked under Pappy Bush, and has been largely falling ever since:

​

Should local law enforcement agencies direct their efforts at criminals regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, citizenship status, age, sexual orientation, etc.? Yes, they should seek to bring all such malefactors to justice with due diligence.

Should the federal government be allowed to commandeer the resources of local law enforcement authorities and burden them with disparate matters that are a federal purview? No.

Does the federal government have any authority over state and local law enforcement?

No. The President only has authority to direct Federal law enforcement policy. States direct their own law enforcement agencies. (Except, possibly when Federal law pre-empts state law and where there are allegations of civil rights violations or misuse of federal funds by local authorities.)

As a legal matter, the federal government has no right to dictate law enforcement policies to local jurisdictions. As a practical matter, local law enforcement authorities function most effectively in fighting crime when they earn the trust of their communities.


.

 

Is a "right wing source" a disqualifying factor? Only to a hopeless leftist, I guess and like most neo-Marxists you never contradict the facts because you cannot so you try to smear the source.
Good enough for a Stalinist show trial. Not good enough when analyzing an issue like this.
And is this really thirteen years out of date? Or are we still wrestling with the problems of illegal immigration today as we were in 2004? Most rational honest
people would say yes.

And? So?

This is your fourth or fifth bite at that rotten apple. You have yet to demonstrate how local law enforcement is "burdened" by
communicating to federal agents the identity of apprehended criminals who are in this country illegally.
I'm really through suffering your foolish repetitious nonsense.

"Earn the trust of their communities"?...You mean when certain democrat strongholds simply stop cooperating with enforcement of federal immigration law, and become willing and duplicitous accomplices in violating federal law?

You keep spewing out your lame disgraceful talking points and in the meantime cities like San Francisco, Chicago, L.A., New York etc. are going to
be earning the trust of communities that will be doing without hundreds of millions of dollars per year that used to flow from Washington DC.

If Jerry Brown, and his ilk, have problems with holding murderers, rapists, drug dealers and other criminal scum for deportation pick up, because they want
the "trust" of their communities (as if those communities don't want felons removed from their midst) then they will find out the true cost of a demagogic
political agenda that values sticking a finger in the eye of federal immigration law (passed legally and in a bipartisan manner) over the true well being of those very same communities you blather on about.
You are all about appeasing the most radical immigration advocates at the expense of the ordinary Jose and Maria just looking to make a living in peace.

 

It's a moot point for trumpsters who pays for the wall. They're happy to funnel money from education, healthcare, or any other worthwhile expenditure to pay for the wall. They don't even care that we're going to be the one's footing the bill for it. The fact that he lied to them about who would pay for it doesn't faze the trumpbot in the slightest.

Trump will have his maginot line. It will likely be as effective as well.

 

You can fantasize that the majority of Americans are "neo Marxists" for sharing my support for a rational policy towards the undocumented if you need to. If you cannot find your fanaticism reflected in any unbiased source of less than thirteen years vintage, so be it. Your "murderers, rapists, drug dealers and other criminal scum" are targeted by local law enforcement agencies without regard to their race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, citizenship status, sexual orientation, height, weight, or whether they favour boxers or briefs.

Federal officials should fulfill their responsibilities with equal zeal, but they are not empowered to force those local authorities to divert their enforcement efforts to investigate issues of citizenship under the U S Constitution. That's the feds' job, not theirs.

I've tried to explain it to you. If you don't get it, you don't get it.

 

His cult is impervious to the documented truth and so eager to be lied to because they are driven by emotion, not reason.

When their narcissistic messiah arrogantly proclaimed that, "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?", he acknowledged as much and expressed his utter contempt for their moral and intellectual faculties.

 

I've never claimed that, but how typical of your disingenuous style that you must twist my words around.
It says so much about you.

If, in your mind,
following federal immigration law makes me guilty of fanaticism then so be it. I would remind you who the president is and of one of his signature issues, making this nation more secure through our borders and cracking down of illegal immigration.
Contrast that with the losing candidate and her stance on that issue. If you are a bright boy you might start to catch on...but I'm betting you won't.

But that's not true and I've already demonstrated that. So what do you call someone who keeps purposely misstating the truth? The Bologna family would likely be alive today if you were correct.

YOU don't get it. Or that is, you refuse to get it, though I've patiently explained to you
several times now why this talking point of yours is a lie and pure bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and I'm tired of suffering a fool's argument gladly.
I dismiss you as an incorrigible disseminator of misinformation and untruths unworthy of any further time spent though I am greatly comforted knowing
leftists like you are being swept aside and ignored as grown ups have finally moved back into the White House and they are already putting it back into order.

 

Still haven't grasped the concept, huh?. ONE, that's right ONE illegal alien who commits a crime is one crime that would not have been committed had that ONE illegal alien not have been in the country. Perhaps you can contact Kate Steinle's parents and discuss with them how law abiding illegal aliens like the one who murdered their daughter, are.

Better yet, talk to these parents of kids killed by illegal aliens, and go see the woman whose son was tortured and murdered by one of the "dreamers", brought here as a child who grew up to be a criminal. Perhaps you can convince them how wonderful the illegal aliens are. That will surely make them feel better about the deaths of their children and how beneficial our open border's policy and government refusal to throw out the invading illegal aliens has been. http://www.foxnews.com/transcript/2015/07/08/parents-children-killed-by-illegal-immigrants-sound-off-gov-fallin-wont-remove/

 

Complaining about the cost of the wall is like complaining about the cost of the water used to put out the fire. When it comes to our national security if something works (and the wall does indeed works) then the cost should be a back burner issue.

 

Trump knocks border wall reports, insists Mexico will pay – eventually

I want our borders secured. We should pay for it. It's our responsibility.

 

It's going to cost Germany almost $100 billion to take care of their refugees, and we have way more illegals than they have refugees. Building a wall makes economic sense.


German government plans to spend 93.6 billion euros on refugees by end 2020: Spiegel
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-costs-idUSKCN0Y50DY