CNN Hill negotiators listen to experts on best ways to secure border, but hear what they want
Yes they are all self serving political idiots... Hopefully coming to a common solution benefits them personally or we are doomed...
Yes they are all self serving political idiots... Hopefully coming to a common solution benefits them personally or we are doomed...
"Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois, the no. 2 Democrat in the chamber, praised the briefers as "conscientious public servants" and reported that they agreed with Democrats that new technologies -- like sensors and drones -- were a higher priority than new barriers, which Trump and many Republicans want."
"But North Dakota Republican Sen. John Hoeven said he walked out convinced the career officials believe a barrier is key. "Yes, you need technology. Yes, you need personnel. But you also have to have a border barrier," Hoeven said."
84 comments:
You have thousands massing on the border intending to invade. If they were armed (and some of them are), this would be a prelude to war requiring an instant military mobilization. So what do you want to do, block them, or shoot them?
Partisan Divide Data
We are near record low rates of crossings and a lot of them are families.
Now I support additional border barriers, but the idea that it is an EMERGENCY is laughable. :-)
I am trying to understand how thousands and thousands of illegal border crossings, regardless of who they are, is somehow acceptable in any way. And apprehensions are not a solution, they are the problem. Apprehended people get to stay while their asylum claims are processed, taking years, after which they disappear. We need to keep them OFF US soil.
The way out of this jam is obvious and has been for months. Democrats, I think, would be willing to be give some money for a barrier IF the President gives permanent protections to DACA and TPS persons and at the very least, keeps legal immigration at the same levels (maybe shifting the buckets a bit). But they aren't going to give Trump money for a barrier without some substantial compromise on his part.
I think Pelosi's a barrier is "immoral" may be a problem for the DEM's.
She hitched her wagon to the "catch and release" silliness...
"I think Pelosi's a barrier is "immoral" may be a problem for the DEM's."
Not a problem at all. Pelosi is just signalling to Trump that the price to get what he wants is high.
And if Trump is serious in his SOTU claim that he wants to *increase* legal immigration, not decrease it (like all of his previous proposals), that would make it even easier to strike this deal.
" Democrats, I think, would be willing to be give some money for a barrier IF the President gives permanent protections to DACA and TPS persons..."
That deal was offered months ago and the Democrats refused. And if they refuse again, Trump will build the wall and give them nothing in return. That is "to cut off one's nose to spite one's face." We now have some sensible Democrats proposing technology for catching drugs and trafficking at the check points in exchange for barrier money-- a win-win. We'll see how far that goes against the Pelosi #resistance.
And I think a temporary DACA/TPS deal (3 years) as Trump has proposed and said he could accept, could be thrown into the deal so that a permanent solution could be traded for a comprehensive immigration reform bill later, contingent on the "wall" being built.
Jerry,
It has always been the Far Right and their "No Pardons" for border violators who have stalled the negotiations.
Remember the 2013 bi-partisan proposal
Sean,
Are you saying that Pelosi will do IMMORAL things for something of value to her?
Remember that she did not say maybe...
Democrats aren't going to give money for a permanent wall to get temporary protection for Dreamers and TPS folks.
"Are you saying that Pelosi will do IMMORAL things for something of value to her?"
I'm saying she's setting the price high.
I am trying to understand how thousands and thousands of illegal border crossings, regardless of who they are, is somehow acceptable in any way.
I don't know that it is acceptable. But Trump says there are 25 million illegal aliens in the country. The fact is, no one has shown an appetite for dealing with that problem on a large scale. Certainly, Trump has proposed nothing on that scale.
--Hiram
Hiram, the first step in solving any problem is stopping it from becoming steadily worse.
John, are you saying that allowing millions of people who have violated our laws many times over should somehow be rewarded for those crimes? And that moreover those who believe that lawbreakers should not profit from their lawbreaking are morally, objectively, legally and strategically wrong? yes, we could have had "comprehensive immigration reform" years ago, but the price– amnesty – was simply too high. Remember how well the Reagan amnesty worked? many did not take it, but it drew many more lawbreakers into the country.
Jerry,
Apparently the wall funding is not so important then...
I am very pragmatic person who has no desire to waste time and resources trying to track down and punish people who have been working here for years.
I assume this is the Far Right trying to play morality police again?
Trading off a path to citizenship for better border security seems a NO BRAINER to me.
Who even benefits from tracking down and deporting these millions of people?
You posit a very false choice. Either we reward millions of criminals or allow many more criminals to enter the country. The essential of any immigration reform is that we MUST stop the ongoing influx of illegal aliens. What we do with all of those who are illegally present in the country, regardless of how they got here, is a different subject altogether. There are solutions that are reasonable, Fair, and relatively easy To implement. Some have suggested that we offer full amnesty for all illegal aliens currently in the country, in exchange for a complete reform of the legal immigration system [after the wall is built] with one single provision, which is that those receiving the amnesty will NEVER gain the right to vote. It is predicted that Democrats would lose all interest in the subject at that point.
As I said... The wall must not be that important to the Far Right...
. Either we reward millions of criminals or allow many more criminals to enter the country.
Bear in mind, being here illegally is not a crime. And the fact is, the resources we have to investigate actual crime are extremely limited. The cost of actually trying to deport 25 million illegal aliens would probably damage the economy.
There is a real linguistic bait and switch here. Just because something is illegal doesn't make it a crime. Generally speaking, I would say crime is a very, very small subset of what is illegal.
--Hiram
Hiram, the first step in solving any problem is stopping it from becoming steadily worse.
There are lots of ways to discourage or reduce illegal immigration. Building factories which provide good paying jobs in countries where illegal aliens come from is one good way. But the fact is, enacting barriers to trade is expensive because barriers aren't productive, and because they create inefficiencies.
--Hiram
We do not need to "hunt down and deport" 25 million illegal aliens. Simply notify the 9 million we know about that they have 1 year (or so) to get back across the border and come back legally, and require E-verify for all new hires. Voila, problem solved.
Oh, and it's not 25 million, it's 12-- source, US Census
Anything more "compassionate" then that gets more complicated. Migrant workers, for instance, would need their own category.
Unfortunately E verify seems to have challenges in both parties
More E Verify back ground
You are very talented at letting the perfect be the enemy of good enough. E-verify should be part of the solution. Remove the incentive of jobs and perhaps fewer will cross the border. We know it works, but of course is not 100%.
Remove the incentive of jobs and perhaps fewer will cross the border.
There are lots of incentives for people to live in America. I don't think eliminating them would be very popular.
I have been asked on occasion why Trump was allowed to cheat on his taxes. The reason is because the federal government doesn't have the resources to look into rich people's finances at the level that would be required for that kind of enforcement. Given the fact, that government doesn't have the resources to investigate real and serious crimes, what can be the justification for pursuing actions and investigations of acts that aren't crimes at all?
--Hiram
I am fine with E Verify, it is politicians from both sides who balk at making it the law of the land.
It seems that many American's want illegal workers here.
People are trying to buck the laws of economics. Trade wants to be competitive, it wants to be free. Now it is possible to thwart these trends, but it's done at huge cost in costs both in the creation of unproductive barriers and lost opportunity costs in cutting off access to cheap labor.
--Hiram
And yet Democrats want a "livable wage" for all no matter their capabilities...
It is better to starve the labor market to drive up wages than to have the government arbitrarily set a high minimum wage.
And yet Democrats want a "livable wage" for all no matter their capabilities...
Sure. As a rule, we aren't quite as enamored with free market as Republicans used to be. Now it is official Republican policy to subsidize labor markets at least in states where they think they can win electoral votes.
--Hiram
Subsidies implies people are getting money from the government...
In this case they are getting money from consumers and businesses...
And the government collects money from the people would prefer to import...
It seems like the perfect DEM system.
The government is blocking competitors from domestic markets allowing domestic producers to charge higher prices. That in my view, is a subsidy.
--hiram
No one is blocking competitors...
The government is taxing products that are made by foreign workers...
Which should protect our domestic workers and help them get paid more, or at least help them stay employed...
No one is blocking competitors.
The point of tariffs and what not is to interfere with competition. And so are threats of protectionism.
--hiram
It reminds me of the "sin taxes"...
We know that cigarettes are bad for citizens and incur costs to our society. So we make people pay more to help offset those costs and to motivate them to make choices that are better for the USA.
I think we all agree that we want more companies and consumers to build / hire in America... So making importers pay some seems correct.
Tariffs remind me of tariffs.
--Hiram
Tariff:
1a : a schedule of duties imposed by a government on imported or in some countries exported goods
b : a duty or rate of duty imposed in such a schedule
2 : a schedule of rates or charges of a business or a public utility
Early you were saying tariffs reminded you of subsidies... :-)
Tariffs are subsidies.
--Hiram
Would make up your mind? :-)
PMFBI, but Hiram is partly right. Tariffs that prevent real competition-- "protectionist"-- amount to subsidies of domestic producers. Those who simply insist on fair trade--"anti-dumping"-- are not. American industry and workers can compete with anybody in the world, if we just remove the massive government "overhead" they are subject to.
A problem American industry has is that we impose burden on businesses that other countries do not. For some reason, American companies are expected to pay for their employees health care. That is simply strange.
--Hiram
Hiram, if the Republicans and corporate overlords had full control of it, they wouldn’t even be doing that. They only believe in everyone for themselves. It’s jerrys utopia.
Moose
The reality is that we do value worker safety, clean water, clean air, etc and these cost money.
Why again should consumers be able to avoid paying for these thing they say they want by Buying Cheap Products from over seas?
Oh, John, you mean that every government-imposed regulation on business is perfectly suited to its supposed aims? You're more of a utopian than Moose says I am. Here is an example: The US has 7 times the lawyers per capita that Japan has.
Yes. We have a free and litigious society.
Your point?
Point being that all the legal maneuvering, responding to all the laws, regulations and taxes, is overhead that subtracts from our global competitiveness. A wee bit of it may be useful; most is not.
I will agree that we have a lot of financial regulations.
Unfortunately that is because crooks and fraudsters are so prevalent and creative. :-)
Too bad that sin is so common among greedy humans.
so, the regulation that denies people the right to collect rainwater on their own property is to prevent crooks and fraudsters from what, exactly? The law requiring Halloween pumpkins and Christmas trees to be grown within the city limits prevents what calamity? Why should it be illegal to hold a Bible study in your home? how does keeping employment records for 100 years prevent fraud? why should you need an expensive government license to operate a blog? are the Japanese seven times less greedy than Americans?
Those sound like local ordinances...
It is amazing what local folk will pass.
Many of them are city and state, yes. Can you imagine how much more damaging federal regulations are? Take, for example, Davis-Bacon. or the tax code. or OSHA, EPA, EEOC, NLRB. Total cost of regulation estimated at
How much extra did you pay for your last car, because of EPA regulations? How much have your electric rates gone up to pay for that "free" "green energy"? Have you properly disposed of your used ink cartridges? Have you replaced that incandescent light bulb in your closet, which will probably last another 50 years, with an expensive mercury-filled CFL because government banned the incandescent?
As I said... Keeping workers safe, our air and water clean, etc are important to most of us.
If you want to risk those things and leave it all to the businesses. You are likely in the minority.
Pre-EPA Photos
Did I say eliminate ALL regulations? NO. But prove to me that every current regulation keeps our workers safe, our air and water clean, and are cost-justified by those benefits. For example, your electric rates have gone up so that, SUPPOSEDLY, windmills will cool the planet. It seems to be working well this week, are you seeing the benefit?
"It seems to be working well this week..."
You're as stupid as your dear leader.
Moose
Jerry,
How would one choose which are cost effective?
Maybe by having a government of elected representatives who evaluate the trade offs?
Our elected representatives no longer evaluate those things. They spout platitudes, at best, and leave the details to entrenched bureaucrats. For example, The EPA "finding" that CO2 is a pollutant and must be controlled, resulting in billions of dollars of benefits at essentially no cost, is a fantastic work of fiction that Congress never imagined and never questioned. The solution may be in the REINS act, requiring Congress to specifically approve any regulation with an economic impact above $100 million.
Moose, I may be stupid, but that does not change the reality, man-made global warming is still the most successful pseudoscientific hoax in history.
What you believe is somewhat immaterial as long as the majority of us are concerned.
You should be concerned about what YOU believe, because it's a lie.
Could be... But I doubt it...
No, jerry. You’re stupid for claiming that the weather here the past two weeks discounts the data supporting AGW. The same as your Dear Leader claimed in a tweet today.
Simply moronic.
Moose
"The data supporting AGW." I'm sorry for calling it a lie or a hoax. It's a joke, right? There is NO Scientific data supporting a future prediction of AGW. There cannot be. And any "scientific data" supporting CURRENT AGW conditions, like "global warming" producing large amounts of snow and cold is not only a joke since it posits the seemingly impossible, but it cannot distinguish between AGW and plain old natural GW.
You know how this whole AGW caused by burning fossil fuels started, don't you? Climate modellers were unable to accurately predict the weather, and so the "only explanation" they could find was to notice how CO2 has been increasing since "the industrial age" (coincidentally about the time we started keeping temperature records). (and also about the time we were coming, quite naturally, out of the Little Ice Age.) Also about the time the "greenhouse effect" was discovered. Voila! correlation became causation. And indeed, it did a fairly decent job from about 1988 when this was proposed, up until about 1998, an El Nino year. During that time, a cabal of scientists, politicians and profiteers like GE latched on to the government money train and sold this questionable "theory" to the general public to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. They are NOT going to let this grand deceit fail just because a few skeptics point out things like:
-- the models do not accurately forecast the present. For the last 20 years, the models consistently predict much more warming than the actual measured data show. Any other theory would have been "busted"-- disproven-- by now.
-- the actual, measured data, when extrapolated, predicts a 100-year warming of about 1-1.5 degrees, not 8.
-- the models cannot accurately predict the known past. They are off almost as much as they are predicting the future. Even after adding multiple "fudge factors."
-- the models cannot accurately predict ANYTHING. These models predict a 2100 temperature of 1.5-4.5 degrees C, or 2.7-8.1 degrees F. Paris tells us 1.5 degrees is the desirable goal, but 3 times that? Such a prediction is worthless as a basis of public policy, yet here we are.
Of course, if you want to blame these migrant caravans pressing against our border as "climate refugees" you can. It would have as much validity as the CAGW "theory" on which it is based.
Time for jerry to try and crowd out the truth with a massive volume of words, I see.
He can't even admit that cold weather on ~10% (or less) of the globe is not representative of the entire globe.
It's basic logic. His inability to agree with basic logic makes him an extremist.
Take the best hitter in baseball. Let's say his batting average is .333.
Forecasting climate is like knowing he will get a hit, on average, in every third at bat.
Forecasting weather is like knowing that his next at bat will result in a single that just gets by the outstretched gloves of the 2nd baseman and shortstop.
Cold weather in a portion of the United States in Winter is like the batter going without a hit in 10 consecutive at bats against the three best pitchers in the league.
Long story short, he's a moron, like his Dear Leader.
Moose
Moose, insulting me might make me go away, but not because you insult me, but because insult seems to be your only argument. you simply refuse to do the research showing that GLOBAL temperatures have risen far less then what are predicted by those climate models that you trust. Any theory as far off as what these CAGW "scientists" swear by would have been dropped long ago if science was the only criterion. Remember, snow was supposed to be a thing of the past by now? So the theory actually predicts less snow, but when we get more snow that is "proof of global warming"? A theory, to be valid, must be falsifiable. The theory of Global Warming is falsified if the globe does not get warmer, which it has not (well, only slightly). The theory of climate change, however, cannot be falsified because whether the globe gets warmer or cooler, more snow or less snow, more rain or less rain, more hurricanes or fewer hurricanes, it all proves that climate changes. In other words, it's all tea leaves and chicken bones, immensely profitable for those purveying it and pretty much worthless for the gullible victims like yourself.
Still won’t accept math and logic, I see. You go ahead and keep writing your volumes, while not comprehending the definition of ‘Global’.
Here’s the text of your Dear Leader’s tweet. You have aligned yourself with idiocy, therefore...
“Well, it happened again. Amy Klobuchar announced that she is running for President, talking proudly of fighting global warming while standing in a virtual blizzard of snow, ice and freezing temperatures. Bad timing. By the end of her speech she looked like a Snowman(woman)!”
Moose
Moose, your willful ignorance prevails. Math, science and logic are firmly against your blind-faith belief system. You apparently missed the fact that GLOBAL temperatures have risen far less than the computer models predict. The fact that local weather here continues to be cold (within historically normal limits) simply emphasizes the point that we are part of a global "NON-phenomenon." In addition to the "scientists" claiming that global warming causes cold and snow, at least one countered that our snowstorms proved nothing because it was hot in Australia! Duh.
I predict that "global warming" will come to Minnesota just about six months after it comes to Australia. Happens every year.
Come to think of it, why don't you convince me with math and logic, if you can, rather than simple insults?
You are impervious to math and logic, as I have already demonstrated here.
Moose
"...because it was hot in Australia!"
Record-shattering heat. But you seem to have left that part out.
Moose
Australia Weather
Jerry,
There is no math or logic that will put a dent in your denial if these graphs don't make you at least pause.
As I have said many times thankfully you are in the minority and getting older. :-)
I am impervious to phoney-baloney math and logic. A) NASA GISS data has been "fudged" to make the past cooler and the present warmer. Those "fudge factors" have been captured and show the fallacy of using such. B) Those lines are not statistically drawn or curve-fit; they are arbitrary. A truer curve would show temps barely rising until about 1920, rapidly rising until about 1950, cooling until about 1980, rising again until 2000, and rising only slightly after that. It's almost as if there is a natural 30-year cycle swamping anything that CO2 actually does.
Have none of you heard of the "pause" and what a headache it has been for the True Believers in CAGW? "If the data doesn't match the theory, change the data"?
There has been no pause.
Moose
But, I'll bite. When did the pause start?
Moose
2000. Look up some real data. global temperature anomaly
As you can see, since 1979, average global temps have increased about 0.4 degrees, or 0.1 degree/decade or 1 degree per century. That's FAR below the Paris targets, so we don't have to do anything!
Global. I don't see any ocean temps there.
Moose
So, your story is that satellites don't fly over the oceans?
And your story is that the oceans heat at the same rate as the atmosphere?
Moose
My story is that the satellites average temperatures over the entire globe-- a global temperature. Land and sea readings, however, are widely scattered over space and time, each station uses uncalibrated instruments and unsuitable locations, and are then "fudged" to supposedly account for those things.
But no, the oceans heat MUCH slower than the atmosphere. The oceans are HUGE. But the models predicted a quick, huge "hot spot" in the atmosphere, and it doesn't exist.
So, your data is not complete. Thanks.
Moose
Global is global. If you leave out or don’t know how much heat the oceans are absorbing, then your argument is just lies.
Moose
Global is global. a few measurements on the land and a few on the sea do not global make. Satellites circle the entire globe multiple times per day. The only real global temperature, to the degree that means anything, comes from the satellite data.
AND, I should point out that it doesn't matter how much HEAT the oceans do or do not absorb, we are measuring the TEMPERATURE. Or are you of the scientific opinion that "if the data do not match the theory, change the data"?
Post a Comment