CNN: President Trump Threatens to Close Border with Mexico

civilwarbuff said:

How many people, especially celebrities, declared they were going to leave the country if Trump got elected? How many actually left?...….ZERO. Talk about getting indignant simply because their side loses an election.

Click to expand...

Just like the Republicans who swore up and down they would leave the country when Obama got elected. It's not as if this is just a liberal tactic. It happens on both sides of the political aisle.

Shiloh Raven said:

Just like the Republicans who swore up and down they would leave the country when Obama got elected. It's not as if this is just a liberal tactic. It happens on both sides of the political aisle.

Click to expand...

Yes it does which is why it is best to simply ignore it.
Rather than secede a state like CA would have a better chance if it simply broke up into 2 or 3 separate states. The south, middle and northern parts of CA are as different from each other as Alaska is from Hawaii. There is precedent for that in W. VA 'seceded' from VA in 1863(?); however any new state resulting from a breakup still needs to be admitted to the Union by the federal gov as per the Constitution.

Breaking up a state into 2 or 3 parts is not a new or novel idea. Several states were formed that way; as you say the last was in 1863. The state legislature must approve, and then the US Congress. The state legislature can use referenda if it want to understand the feelings of the voters, but it is the vote of the legislature that is necessary.

List of U.S. state partition proposals - Wikipedia
=====
Of course, secession from the union is in fact illegal.

civilwarbuff said:

Yes it does which is why it is best to simply ignore it.
Rather than secede a state like CA would have a better chance if it simply broke up into 2 or 3 separate states. The south, middle and northern parts of CA are as different from each other as Alaska is from Hawaii. There is precedent for that in W. VA 'seceded' from VA in 1863(?); however any new state resulting from a breakup still needs to be admitted to the Union by the federal gov as per the Constitution.

Click to expand...

civilwarbuff said:

How many people, especially celebrities, declared they were going to leave the country if Trump got elected? How many actually left?...….ZERO. Talk about getting indignant simply because their side loses an election.

Click to expand...

I heard the same nonsense when his predecessor was elected... and again when he was re-elected.

I never took it seriously; why did you?

mark46 said:

The humanitarian costs would not be affected much by a border closing, just as the humanitarian costs aren't affected much by the wall. Neither is an effective tool in addressing the humanitarian crisis.

Click to expand...

Well a barrier does help slow the traffic, and serves to funnel traffic to secure points of entry. A wall (which in reality is not like a solid concrete wall across the entire boarder as the word might suggest) gives boarder patrol precious time to apprehend illegal crossings. One man or a small group of men, even with transportation, can only cover so much ground. Take this idea, multiply the agents and apply it to nearly two thousand miles of boarder and we still have the same problem. Closing the boarder for an unspecified amount of time, in theory could help boarder patrol to catch up with the current humanitarian crisis, because in theory at least, it would greatly reduce the inflow of traffic, providing time to deal with the crisis on our side of the boarder. For every single immigrant, whether illegal and sent back or illegal and eligible for the same benefits provided for needy legal citizens, there is a cost and a price paid by all legal citizens, even when the government provides the benefits, it's never free. It really does not help that this has been a problem, a crisis really, for decades. The estimated number of illegal immigrants currently in America is in the multi million range. Key word is estimated, and it does not account for the undocumented nor the legitimacy of the process when considering all legalized immigrants. Think about the consequences for America as a nation if this continues at the same pace and if we do not take necessary action to slow this problem down. The way I see it, if we do not address the problem now, it will be too late for our children. Unfortunately our lax policies and measures have compounded this problem and encouraged this crisis to the point we are currently at. We must discourage illegal immigration, it is hurting us as a country, it has taken it's toll for decades, and will continue to do so unless it is discouraged. Sorry for not being more brief, but I wanted to articulate and explain the thought process, rather than just making statements. God bless you, God bless America.

We should all repeat 10 times: the issue is NOT illegal crossings.
=========
More than 100,000 this month will attempt to cross into the US LEGALLY in order to claim asylum, and stay in the US for the 2 year average it takes to adjudicate their case. Half fail when the court date comes.

In any case, the issue is the millions who live in the 3 countries who would come to the US if they could.

LEGAL immigration at the Southern border continues to go down to its lowest numbers in many decades, partly because of Trump's policies.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

Well a barrier does help slow the traffic, and serves to funnel traffic to secure points of entry. A wall (which in reality is not like a solid concrete wall across the entire boarder as the word might suggest) gives boarder patrol precious time to apprehend illegal crossings. One man or a small group of men, even with transportation, can only cover so much ground. Take this idea, multiply the agents and apply it to nearly two thousand miles of boarder and we still have the same problem. Closing the boarder for an unspecified amount of time, in theory could help boarder patrol to catch up with the current humanitarian crisis, because in theory at least, it would greatly reduce the inflow of traffic, providing time to deal with the crisis on our side of the boarder. For every single immigrant, whether illegal and sent back or illegal and eligible for the same benefits provided for needy legal citizens, there is a cost and a price paid by all legal citizens, even when the government provides the benefits, it's never free. It really does not help that this has been a problem, a crisis really, for decades. The estimated number of illegal immigrants currently in America is in the multi million range. Key word is estimated, and it does not account for the undocumented nor the legitimacy of the process when considering all legalized immigrants. Think about the consequences for America as a nation if this continues at the same pace and if we do not take necessary action to slow this problem down. The way I see it, if we do not address the problem now, it will be too late for our children. Unfortunately our lax policies and measures have compounded this problem and encouraged this crisis to the point we are currently at. We must discourage illegal immigration, it is hurting us as a country, it has taken it's toll for decades, and will continue to do so unless it is discouraged. Sorry for not being more brief, but I wanted to articulate and explain the thought process, rather than just making statements. God bless you, God bless America.

Click to expand...

mark46 said:

We should all repeat 10 times: the issue is NOT illegal crossings.
=========
More than 100,000 this month will attempt to cross into the US LEGALLY in order to claim asylum, and stay in the US for the 2 year average it takes to adjudicate their case. Half fail when the court date comes.

In any case, the issue is the millions who live in the 3 countries who would come to the US if they could.

LEGAL immigration at the Southern border continues to go down to its lowest numbers in many decades, partly because of Trump's policies.

Click to expand...

So closing our boarder puts pressure on Mexico to not be so lax across their boarder(s). Or in other words, how are all these people from other countries funneling through Mexico? I think they have to be receiving aid from somebodies somewhere to even think about such a journey.

I venture to guess that the root cause for decline of legal immigration is because of illegal immigration. Our legal system can be extremely slow, as a personal example, I have been waiting for a disability determination for almost two years. I started an appeal nearly two years ago. I waited about a year for a hearing. I've been waiting for more than four months since the hearing. I could gather other examples, but this personal example illustrates the slowness of our legal system. I think they secretly hope people die before making a determination, I've read stories of such.

thecolorsblend said:

The country is getting swarmed with illegals from places unknown and agendas unknown.

The yuppies can live without trips to the beach in Mexico. Who knows, drying up the tourism may light a fire under the Mexican government to do something.

Click to expand...

I'm sure people still can fly to Mexico. Just like Russians fly to American and stay.

mark46 said:

We should all repeat 10 times: the issue is NOT illegal crossings.
=========

Click to expand...

...the asylum process is overwhelmed. You could even say there is a refugee crises on both sides of the border...for several months now.

Yet....

Where is the call for NGO refugee agencies who have the skill set to deal with such problems?
Is the Trump Administration asking Congress for solutions in resolving this issue?

No.

Instead we hear messages designed to appeal to Trump's base:

"Build the Wall"
"Close the Border"
"Cut off aid to Central America"

None of those will resolve the current issue and in fact, only exacerbate more immigration. As long as Central Americas correctly perceive there is path to the US via the asylum process -- they will continue to come.

TRUMP
Trump is acting as he believes appropriate. Republican voters agree, in large numbers. He believes that his tough (mean spirited and racist) stances on the border will reduce the number of those who would take the risks to come so far to seek asylum. He has negotiated with the all 4 countries involved, and has gotten almost no actual cooperation. Democrats act as if the asylum seekers are Mexicans escaping Mexican gangs. That is not primarily the case. The 3 Central American countries allow their citizens to leave in increasing numbers. Mexico allows them in (even with their tough laws) and allows them to come over a thousand miles to seek asylum in the US. Trump is furious will all the countries involved. The US will not accept hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers into a process whereby half will be allowed into the US and be eligible to apply for citizenship (after a year).

Do YOU propose accepting hundreds of thousands (or millions) into the US as asylum seekers, or even as temporary refugees?

Trump has plenty on his plate. He doesn't see his role as organizing NGO's to take care of asylum seekers who shouldn't be at out borders in the first place. BTW, is trump wrong? If the asylum seekers were treated very, very well in Mexico as they were in line to gain admittance into he US, do You think that FEWER would come. Of course not; millions would come next quarter. The answer is to stop he huge numbers hundreds of miles from our border.

You complain about Trump's communications with his base. Well, they agree with him, and they are loyal to him (includinging evangelicals).
=============
REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS
Obviously, Republicans in Congress have little interest ind doing anything. They have the responsibility to work with Democrats to put legislation on Trump's desk. They have mad their deal with Trump, and they fear being primaried.
=============
DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS
OK, where is the Democratic House bill that addresses this problem. Perhaps this is more important than passing the Green New Deal, perhaps not. But passing legislation that shows us the the Democratic position would be very useful. Some republicans would support such a bill. Personally, I haven't a CLUE what the Democratic position really is, other than NO WALL. Do Democrats support sending billions of aid to the 4 countries? So Democrats favor giving billions to NGO's? Do Democrats favor a coalition of countries working together (which will aisles cost billions). What actions do Democrats favor to convince the 4 countries that we the US WILL NOT accept hundreds of thousands into the US, and that having that many trying every month is unacceptable.

We hear cries for more judges, better facilities on both sides of the border. This will decrease the 700K backlog. If we reduced it to zero tomorrow, that would mean accepting 350K or so into the US. Are Democrats proposing that? If the process were improved, that would mean millions more would come, even with a few billion in aid to the 4 countries.
=======
SOME CONCLUSIONS
The Democrats don't have a position. If there is one that is consistent with Democratic and US values, that position would include
1) billions in aid in a longterm aid program to the 3 Central American countries, starting with those most willing an able to receive help.
2) Better facilities and many steps to improve the process.
3) Incentives and penalties to Mexico to get them to reject these seekers at THEIR Southern border.
4) A significant increase in the number of asylum seekers that will be accepted each year; at very least, there should be a new group of emergency refugees (those form 10 year ago are still here).

HOWEVER, this is very poor politics. Democrats have their immigration priorities. They include
a) a path to citizenship for DACA folks
b) a path to citizenship, or a formal extension to emergencies refugees from 10 years ago
c) an immigration deal that grants at least legal status to the undocumented within the US
d) enforcement processes that punish businesses, rather than employees
e) an extended worker program

If Democrats were to have an immigration fight, those on the border are of relatively low priority, other than the obvious humanitarian tragedies at the border. Dems cannot suggest accepting million of new refugees. So, the Dems are making the humanitarian tragedies their political football, hoping to win the immigration issue in the 2020 campaign.
========
BOTTOM LINE
This will definitely be an issue in the 2020 campaign. Voters have this issue in their top 3. Russian collusion and corruption is not even on the radar, except for left wing Democrats who will vote agains t Trumps in any case.

Trump's position is that there is indeed a crisis on the Southern border, and that hundreds of thousands who are pouring across Mexico to the border is a humanitarian and security crisis for the US, and that the US will not accept large numbers of refugees in to the US. Democrats disagree and seem to believe that a NO WALL slogan, and that the asylum seekers are being mistreated will somehow win the day.

Democrats believe that Trump's campaign is failing. I disagree. He now has 6 strong issues: the economy, the judiciary, military improvement, immigration, the "no collusion" conclusion by Mueller, and the impractical far left proposals of the Democrats (including the Green New Deal).

Trump has 2 losing issues: corruption/incompetence of his administration, and health care. The first is an illusion if awing overs believe that the country is better off. Trump has 18 months to try to reduce the effect of the health care issue. At very least, he has a winner against most of the Democratic healthcare proposals.

wing2000 said:

...the asylum process is overwhelmed. You could even say there is a refugee crises on both sides of the border...for several months now.

Yet....

Where is the call for NGO refugee agencies who have the skill set to deal with such problems?
Is the Trump Administration asking Congress for solutions in resolving this issue?

No.

Instead we hear messages designed to appeal to Trump's base:

"Build the Wall"
"Close the Border"
"Cut off aid to Central America"

None of those will resolve the current issue and in fact, only exacerbate more immigration. As long as Central Americas correctly perceive there is path to the US via the asylum process -- they will continue to come.

Click to expand...

I really don't care about the politics from either a "republican" or "democratic" view. I certainly detest portraying Central Americans as villains (as Trump's message clearly does).

I do care about having a discussion that reflects the current reality and acknowledges that the United States has a significant role to play in the long term solution to both historical illegal immigration over the past forty years and the current crisis which is rooted in violence, corruption and economic hopelessness.

mark46 said:

TRUMP
Trump is acting as he believes appropriate. Republican voters agree, in large numbers. He believes that his tough (mean spirited and racist) stances on the border will reduce the number of those who would take the risks to come so far to seek asylum. He has negotiated with the all 4 countries involved, and has gotten almost no actual cooperation. Democrats act as if the asylum seekers are Mexicans escaping Mexican gangs. That is not primarily the case. The 3 Central American countries allow their citizens to leave in increasing numbers. Mexico allows them in (even with their tough laws) and allows them to come over a thousand miles to seek asylum in the US. Trump is furious will all the countries involved. The US will not accept hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers into a process whereby half will be allowed into the US and be eligible to apply for citizenship (after a year).

Do YOU propose accepting hundreds of thousands (or millions) into the US as asylum seekers, or even as temporary refugees?

Trump has plenty on his plate. He doesn't see his role as organizing NGO's to take care of asylum seekers who shouldn't be at out borders in the first place. BTW, is trump wrong? If the asylum seekers were treated very, very well in Mexico as they were in line to gain admittance into he US, do You think that FEWER would come. Of course not; millions would come next quarter. The answer is to stop he huge numbers hundreds of miles from our border.

You complain about Trump's communications with his base. Well, they agree with him, and they are loyal to him (includinging evangelicals).
=============
REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS
Obviously, Republicans in Congress have little interest ind doing anything. They have the responsibility to work with Democrats to put legislation on Trump's desk. They have mad their deal with Trump, and they fear being primaried.
=============
DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS
OK, where is the Democratic House bill that addresses this problem. Perhaps this is more important than passing the Green New Deal, perhaps not. But passing legislation that shows us the the Democratic position would be very useful. Some republicans would support such a bill. Personally, I haven't a CLUE what the Democratic position really is, other than NO WALL. Do Democrats support sending billions of aid to the 4 countries? So Democrats favor giving billions to NGO's? Do Democrats favor a coalition of countries working together (which will aisles cost billions). What actions do Democrats favor to convince the 4 countries that we the US WILL NOT accept hundreds of thousands into the US, and that having that many trying every month is unacceptable.

We hear cries for more judges, better facilities on both sides of the border. This will decrease the 700K backlog. If we reduced it to zero tomorrow, that would mean accepting 350K or so into the US. Are Democrats proposing that? If the process were improved, that would mean millions more would come, even with a few billion in aid to the 4 countries.
=======
SOME CONCLUSIONS
The Democrats don't have a position. If there is one that is consistent with Democratic and US values, that position would include
1) billions in aid in a longterm aid program to the 3 Central American countries, starting with those most willing an able to receive help.
2) Better facilities and many steps to improve the process.
3) Incentives and penalties to Mexico to get them to reject these seekers at THEIR Southern border.
4) A significant increase in the number of asylum seekers that will be accepted each year; at very least, there should be a new group of emergency refugees (those form 10 year ago are still here).

HOWEVER, this is very poor politics. Democrats have their immigration priorities. They include
a) a path to citizenship for DACA folks
b) a path to citizenship, or a formal extension to emergencies refugees from 10 years ago
c) an immigration deal that grants at least legal status to the undocumented within the US
d) enforcement processes that punish businesses, rather than employees
e) an extended worker program

If Democrats were to have an immigration fight, those on the border are of relatively low priority, other than the obvious humanitarian tragedies at the border. Dems cannot suggest accepting million of new refugees. So, the Dems are making the humanitarian tragedies their political football, hoping to win the immigration issue in the 2020 campaign.
========
BOTTOM LINE
This will definitely be an issue in the 2020 campaign. Voters have this issue in their top 3. Russian collusion and corruption is not even on the radar, except for left wing Democrats who will vote agains t Trumps in any case.

Trump's position is that there is indeed a crisis on the Southern border, and that hundreds of thousands who are pouring across Mexico to the border is a humanitarian and security crisis for the US, and that the US will not accept large numbers of refugees in to the US. Democrats disagree and seem to believe that a NO WALL slogan, and that the asylum seekers are being mistreated will somehow win the day.

Democrats believe that Trump's campaign is failing. I disagree. He now has 6 strong issues: the economy, the judiciary, military improvement, immigration, the "no collusion" conclusion by Mueller, and the impractical far left proposals of the Democrats (including the Green New Deal).

Trump has 2 losing issues: corruption/incompetence of his administration, and health care. The first is an illusion if awing overs believe that the country is better off. Trump has 18 months to try to reduce the effect of the health care issue. At very least, he has a winner against most of the Democratic healthcare proposals.

Click to expand...

I apologize. This is a political forum, where I presumed that we discuss political issues and political solutions. You seem to want an academic discussion on the causes of illegal immigration, US complicity in the problems in Central America, and in academic solutions.

If that is what you want, you might open a thread that makes clear that we are not discussing political issues or solutions.

wing2000 said:

I really don't care about the politics from either a "republican" or "democratic" view. I certainly detest portraying Central Americans as villains (as Trump's message clearly does).

I do care about having a discussion that reflects the current reality and acknowledges that the United States has a significant role to play in the long term solution to both historical illegal immigration over the past forty years and the current crisis which is rooted in violence, corruption and economic hopelessness.

Click to expand...

civilwarbuff said:

Yes it does which is why it is best to simply ignore it.

Click to expand...

So why didn't you?

Over 700K cases are waiting to be adjudicated, which would allow 350K or so into the US, much more than CONGRESS or the president is willing to accept.

Mexico has much stiffer immigration laws than we do. However, 100K will come to US border this month to try to cross LEGALLY, after crossing 1000 miles of Mexican territory.
==
I have not stated a solution. I don't know of any acceptable solution that would help.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

So closing our boarder puts pressure on Mexico to not be so lax across their boarder(s). Or in other words, how are all these people from other countries funneling through Mexico? I think they have to be receiving aid from somebodies somewhere to even think about such a journey.

I venture to guess that the root cause for decline of legal immigration is because of illegal immigration. Our legal system can be extremely slow, as a personal example, I have been waiting for a disability determination for almost two years. I started an appeal nearly two years ago. I waited about a year for a hearing. I've been waiting for more than four months since the hearing. I could gather other examples, but this personal example illustrates the slowness of our legal system. I think they secretly hope people die before making a determination, I've read stories of such.

Click to expand...

mark46 said:

TRUMP
Trump is acting as he believes appropriate. Republican voters agree, in large numbers. He believes that his tough (mean spirited and racist) stances on the border will reduce the number of those who would take the risks to come so far to seek asylum. He has negotiated with the all 4 countries involved, and has gotten almost no actual cooperation. Democrats act as if the asylum seekers are Mexicans escaping Mexican gangs. That is not primarily the case. The 3 Central American countries allow their citizens to leave in increasing numbers. Mexico allows them in (even with their tough laws) and allows them to come over a thousand miles to seek asylum in the US. Trump is furious will all the countries involved. The US will not accept hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers into a process whereby half will be allowed into the US and be eligible to apply for citizenship (after a year).

Do YOU propose accepting hundreds of thousands (or millions) into the US as asylum seekers, or even as temporary refugees?

Trump has plenty on his plate. He doesn't see his role as organizing NGO's to take care of asylum seekers who shouldn't be at out borders in the first place. BTW, is trump wrong? If the asylum seekers were treated very, very well in Mexico as they were in line to gain admittance into he US, do You think that FEWER would come. Of course not; millions would come next quarter. The answer is to stop he huge numbers hundreds of miles from our border.

You complain about Trump's communications with his base. Well, they agree with him, and they are loyal to him (includinging evangelicals).
=============
REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS
Obviously, Republicans in Congress have little interest ind doing anything. They have the responsibility to work with Democrats to put legislation on Trump's desk. They have mad their deal with Trump, and they fear being primaried.
=============
DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS
OK, where is the Democratic House bill that addresses this problem. Perhaps this is more important than passing the Green New Deal, perhaps not. But passing legislation that shows us the the Democratic position would be very useful. Some republicans would support such a bill. Personally, I haven't a CLUE what the Democratic position really is, other than NO WALL. Do Democrats support sending billions of aid to the 4 countries? So Democrats favor giving billions to NGO's? Do Democrats favor a coalition of countries working together (which will aisles cost billions). What actions do Democrats favor to convince the 4 countries that we the US WILL NOT accept hundreds of thousands into the US, and that having that many trying every month is unacceptable.

We hear cries for more judges, better facilities on both sides of the border. This will decrease the 700K backlog. If we reduced it to zero tomorrow, that would mean accepting 350K or so into the US. Are Democrats proposing that? If the process were improved, that would mean millions more would come, even with a few billion in aid to the 4 countries.
=======
SOME CONCLUSIONS
The Democrats don't have a position. If there is one that is consistent with Democratic and US values, that position would include
1) billions in aid in a longterm aid program to the 3 Central American countries, starting with those most willing an able to receive help.
2) Better facilities and many steps to improve the process.
3) Incentives and penalties to Mexico to get them to reject these seekers at THEIR Southern border.
4) A significant increase in the number of asylum seekers that will be accepted each year; at very least, there should be a new group of emergency refugees (those form 10 year ago are still here).

HOWEVER, this is very poor politics. Democrats have their immigration priorities. They include
a) a path to citizenship for DACA folks
b) a path to citizenship, or a formal extension to emergencies refugees from 10 years ago
c) an immigration deal that grants at least legal status to the undocumented within the US
d) enforcement processes that punish businesses, rather than employees
e) an extended worker program

If Democrats were to have an immigration fight, those on the border are of relatively low priority, other than the obvious humanitarian tragedies at the border. Dems cannot suggest accepting million of new refugees. So, the Dems are making the humanitarian tragedies their political football, hoping to win the immigration issue in the 2020 campaign.
========
BOTTOM LINE
This will definitely be an issue in the 2020 campaign. Voters have this issue in their top 3. Russian collusion and corruption is not even on the radar, except for left wing Democrats who will vote agains t Trumps in any case.

Trump's position is that there is indeed a crisis on the Southern border, and that hundreds of thousands who are pouring across Mexico to the border is a humanitarian and security crisis for the US, and that the US will not accept large numbers of refugees in to the US. Democrats disagree and seem to believe that a NO WALL slogan, and that the asylum seekers are being mistreated will somehow win the day.

Democrats believe that Trump's campaign is failing. I disagree. He now has 6 strong issues: the economy, the judiciary, military improvement, immigration, the "no collusion" conclusion by Mueller, and the impractical far left proposals of the Democrats (including the Green New Deal).

Click to expand...

That Green New Deal certainly stirred up the Right. So much so that they are at great pains to spin it as legislation rather than a rather silly, feel good non-binding resolution. "The Left is gonna confiscate all our cars and airplanes!!!" What's that about?

Trump has 2 losing issues: corruption/incompetence of his administration, and health care. The first is an illusion if awing overs believe that the country is better off. Trump has 18 months to try to reduce the effect of the health care issue. At very least, he has a winner against most of the Democratic healthcare proposals.

Click to expand...

By having no health care proposal of his own?

Speedwell said:

"The Left is gonna confiscate all our cars and airplanes!!!"

Click to expand...

Since you have this in quotes exactly who said this?

The House passed a bill for the Green New Deal. Democrats voted for it, and there are comments available to the ad writers.

Many of the candidates are discussing various proposals contained within this manifesto. All the candidates will have to comment. McConnell will have campaign issues. Obviously, claiming that dems are "taking away our cars and airplanes" won't be a successful campaign approach. However, after the 25 candidates make their thousands of comments, there will be plenty of fodder for Republican PAC ads.
If the candidates don't provide enough to use, the ad writers will use AOC interviews.

Speedwell said:

That Green New Deal certainly stirred up the Right. So much so that they are at great pains to spin it as legislation rather than a rather silly, feel good non-binding resolution. "The Left is gonna confiscate all our cars and airplanes!!!" What's that about?

Click to expand...

mark46 said:

I apologize. This is a political forum, where I presumed that we discuss political issues and political solutions. You seem to want an academic discussion on the causes of illegal immigration, US complicity in the problems in Central America, and in academic solutions.

If that is what you want, you might open a thread that makes clear that we are not discussing political issues or solutions.

Click to expand...

I am frustrated and impatient by the lack of comprehensive immigration reform - derailed by false political narratives and the inattention to Latin America in general. Of course this is a political forum that is driven by the latest head line or Trump tweet. Carry on...

Let us put aside the Court case, which may or may not affect anything.
===================
We have the current situation.

Republicans have no plans, but they will come up with some nonsense that they say all retain SOME of the protections, reduce premiums, reduce drug costs and more choices from the federal government to the states.

The Democrats candidates will discuss their versions of Medicare for All, and how taxes will be raised to pay for the change. This target may not give the health issue to the Republicans, but it will help reduce its importance. There are million of Americans who might not want higher taxes to provide medicare for all. The alternative approach of paying this by eliminating private insurance is an even greater gift to Republicans. The issue will be straightforward. The Democratic candidate will have to have an well worked out position on Medicare for All, including paying for it. The Republican will attack the idea of more government and higher taxes, and say that their plan is better, and that it moves decisions to the states. The solution will likely be some sort of block grants, as has been used in the past.

Speedwell said:

By having no health care proposal of his own?

Click to expand...

civilwarbuff said:

Since you have this in quotes exactly who said this?

Click to expand...

I'll back down on the "gonna." I'm not sure I should be give names in that way because I am not going to scroll back through all the posts in multiple threads, but there have been multiple posters who have made that statement, repeated a number of times in the Green New Deal thread that was running here recently. You yourself called it a "bill" which means you think it will have the force of law.