Donald Trump

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

TheWretch wrote:

So the US put sanctions on imported steel and Europe then threatened to put in their own tariffs? Economically speaking I guess Mexicans have as much sway as Europe?

How does this relate to Mexico and the rest of the world putting trade sanctions on the US over a wall at their border again? Oh right... it doesn't.

LOL.

All the world would side with Mexico in this. No one would like Trump enough to let that pass when the WTO goes against it.

We clearly are not living on the same planet. That last statement sounds delusional, sry.

Who do you think set up and runs the WTO?

@Dalailama: giving information is not the same than encouraging immigration. If you know it's going to happen anyway, what would you do to reduce the deaths? (think of this like Sex education for teens; teaching how to make things safe is not the same than encouraging sex).

"

TheWretch wrote:

Who do you think set up and runs the WTO?

It's in US, true, but it has made judgements against US. The power of law depends on enforcement, so if Europe decides to follow through it, it doesn't matter at all where the WTO is. If you want to bet Europe and other countries will ignore this, go ahead.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

@Dalailama: giving information is not the same than encouraging immigration. If you know it's going to happen anyway, what would you do to reduce the deaths?

"

TheWretch wrote:

Who do you think set up and runs the WTO?

It's in US, true, but it has made judgements against US. The power of law depends on enforcement, so if Europe decides to follow through it, it doesn't matter at all where the WTO is. If you want to bet Europe and other countries will ignore this, go ahead.

Historically speaking, of course they will. What's in it for them?

Its the World TRADE Organization, what does this have to do with free trade?

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

TheWretch wrote:

When the country's government is owned by violent cartels, what else do you propose? The last 20 years haven't worked

And US is as much to blame as Mexico. See the War on Drugs for the reason the cartels are that strong in first place.

I gave you the reason earlier in the thread. Any sources you find that don't cite what I listed are about as accurate as saying that Walter White didn't have anything to do with making meth on Breaking Bad. I don't care two hoots about the reputability of a source, if that source can't bother to do some real research, and connect the dots.

Imagine if something the US did DOUBLED the economy of Europe in ten year period and later historians and academics somehow missed that in their analysis. How much would you trust them?

Mexican makers of meth don't have to buy packages of Pseudoephedrine and sort the "binder" out to make their drugs. They can and do simply go to the manufacturer and ask for the product in bulk without any binder added. It was no longer a few smaller operations producing meth in houses and oddball locations, but became an organized consolidated business.

20 billion in Cartel income annually became 40 billion annually.

Thanks Ron Wyden.

This is also why I occasionally make the effort to try and explain to people how and why they need to really dig in and do some research beyond Googling stuff. If you have access to a major public library (not online, physical access) take the time and dig through some history sections (government documents are good) and make some notes about anything major and controversial during a ten year period.

Now go online and see what your usual sources of information have on that same time frame. The ones that get their facts wrong because they can't even bother to go check some documents aren't worth following anymore. It's part of honest journalism. There is some legwork involved. When the right research (including some investigating done by the journalist themselves at times) is done, then you have a source that is worth listening to. Whether you agree with their opinion doesn't matter so much as whether the facts that they do cite are accurate.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

@Dalailama: giving information is not the same than encouraging immigration. If you know it's going to happen anyway, what would you do to reduce the deaths? (think of this like Sex education for teens; teaching how to make things safe is not the same than encouraging sex).

Hmm, so would teaching illegal immigrants how to bypass the document checks to get US govt benefits qualify? Would using physical force by Mexican govt agents against US border patrol to help illegal immigrants get across count? The list goes on and on and on.

Deny whatever you want. I will not spend hours rooting through sources to refute an ill informed and skeptical opinion. The problem has been well known, documented and dealt with for well over twenty years.

If somehow Trump is elected, the world will see what a sham the current administration is, and how deep the lies go. Obama won't go to jail, but lots of people in agencies that work for him will.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

@Dalailama: giving information is not the same than encouraging immigration. If you know it's going to happen anyway, what would you do to reduce the deaths? (think of this like Sex education for teens; teaching how to make things safe is not the same than encouraging sex).

Hmm, so would teaching illegal immigrants how to bypass the document checks to get US govt benefits qualify? Would using physical force by Mexican govt agents against US border patrol to help illegal immigrants get across count? The list goes on and on and on.

That's not what the images you linked says. It says it's a crime to use false identifications in US (I can read spanish). It says to not lie to US agents. The other one is about how not to die crossing a river (the idea of crossing the river shouldn't be that unintuitive).

If there is another image that says that more clearly, well, that's another thing. I'll search it.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

As someone who lives in El Paso, Texas - immediately across from Juarez - I think all this war versus Mexico talk is silly. On both sides, but mostly Dalai's.

The silliness is in assuming I mean or implied war. Policing your own borders is not war. Using drones and extra 4 wheel drive patrols and some vans to round up illegal immigrants is not war. Using financial penalties against a nation that is complicit in facilitating illegal border crossings is not war.

When a motorcycle is going 160 mph down the highway and the police have to use force to arrest him, it isn't war. When the fire department shows up to put out a fire, it isn't war. When the border patrol stops an immigrant in the "zone" and asks for documentation, it isn't war. (The "zone" is already a legal area where they can stop anyone for any reason and question you).

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I think it goes without saying that the border is relatively open to tourism. I'm not quite sure what the requirements are to cross over from Mexico, but it's probably just a passport. .

I haven't been across to Juarez before, but the US/Mexican border cities I have been to, you need a passport or government issued license that is considered secure. Many states driver's license no longer qualify to get across the border. If you are headed south to Mexico for some day shopping, you usually don't need any more. If you are going for a couple or three days, the paperwork and fees are usually cheap. Longer than that, and you probably still need a visa.

Coming north of the border is fairly simple too, for those that follow the rules.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

I see US Customs and Border Protection vehicles every day, in their distinctive white with green stripes. I assume they're keeping me safe somehow. Precisely how, I can't fathom. .

I've been stopped a few times - twice while just coming back from Mexico, and once almost an hour north of the border. They asked a few questions, checked IDs and let us on our way two times. Mainly, they were checking to see if we were smuggling anything back with us. (Nothing but a three dollar bottle of tequila and Kahlua). One time they did want to inspect the vehicle ( a van) but when they looked inside and saw 60 sleeping bags and assorted backpacks, they decided the time to look through everything wasn't worth the effort. (It was a very large group of students in a convoy during spring break).

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

It's some kind of sick war-hawk delusion to believe that you can fight a war against another nation .

There's no war being suggested at all. Elevating basic police patrols to the status of war is silly.

The only reason military forces would even be used initially, is because they already have the training and the equipment to do this. They have done much of it already, they just aren't stopping and detaining people.

The actual implementation could be done by civilian police forces once they are staffed up and trained and equipped. Military forces could be used as a cost savings measure. Yeah, it actually would be cheaper currently to do it this way for reasons that may not be apparent, but would be once approved and legislated.

Equipped doesn't mean gunship helicopters or flame throwers or any other nonsense. It does mean more vehicles, more patrols, drones and some actual ammunition in their fire arms (politicians who force border patrol to go without ammunition in their weapons should be catapulted into a giant pit where those politicians only food is each other).

I'm not talking pie in the sky scenarios. I've participated in discussions with people who would be in charge of implementing some of these policies, and they are the ones that said this is feasible. All they need is the go ahead, some funding, and if they don't want the US military to handle any of it, then they will need more personell and gear.

The US needs immigrants, and we need good international relationships. We don't need the current overburden of immigrants. Mexico is the frequent subject, because that is where the vast majority of illegal immigrants come from. The percentage of them from further south (Central and South America) is not a huge chunk, and certainly much less than it used to be ten or fifteen years ago.

Much of the solution (aside from any purported wall, and adequate border patrols and arrests) will come from a national implementation of the same laws regarding employers that Arizona already implemented. AFAIK, no tanks, nukes or biological warfare is required against any foreign nations to hold US companies accountable for who they hire. When the financial risk of breaking the law is greater than the financial reward, much of the problem will vanish.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

That's not what the images you linked says. It says it's a crime to use false identifications in US (I can read spanish). It says to not lie to US agents. The other one is about how not to die crossing a river (the idea of crossing the river shouldn't be that unintuitive).

If there is another image that says that more clearly, well, that's another thing. I'll search it.

The images I linked were of one thing and one thing only - an official pamphlet to help more immigrants get across. The other things can be found with Google if you doubt them. I already stated the reasons (essentially time constraints) why I will not continue to look things up for you.

The onus is on you to prove what almost everyone here in the US knows is happening. If you personally knew or worked with dozens or hundreds of Mexican immigrants to the US, and specifically had to help them fill out I-9 forms, or work with immigration lawyers I might cut you a little bit of slack. If you had done these things, what I am saying would be readily apparent to you. One of the very best people that I ever worked with ended up being deported despite our efforts to try and help him stay - legally.

I know a lot of people from Mexico, and I have nothing but admiration for the majority that I know.

It is the system that is broken, and all the US is trying to do is fix it. Trump's opponents are claiming nothing is wrong with the system, which is like saying there is nothing wrong with ISIS.

If you wish to try and find proof that refutes what I have been saying, by all means post it, and I'll counter refute it. If you aren't willing to dig a little deeper on your own though, I won't do it for you.

Here are some hints to get you started - when a person is in the country illegally, what kind of benefits are they prohibited from, and how does the Mexican government teach them to get around those limits?

@Dalailama: it's ok, no need to search stuff for me. I found a guide myself after some google (I have to keep searching for that stuff about how to get around US checks, it would be too blatant to be on paper, although it wouldn't surprise me if it was an unnoficial thing).

Still, even with all this, I wouldn't use solutions that would be paid by the people of Mexico (assuming is possible in the first place because they rely in leverage via trade tariffs and stuff, and I think it won't happen), when there are other solutions available. I don't think a whole nation must be punished for the problems of a subset, unless there are no other alternatives.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

@Dalailama: it's ok, no need to search stuff for me. I found a guide myself after some google (I have to keep searching for that stuff about how to get around US checks, it would be too blatant to be on paper, although it wouldn't surprise me if it was an unnoficial thing).

Still, even with all this, I wouldn't use solutions that would be paid by the people of Mexico (assuming is possible in the first place because they rely in leverage via trade tariffs and stuff, and I think it won't happen), when there are other solutions available. I don't think a whole nation must be punished for the problems of a subset, unless there are no other alternatives.

See that's the problem with the left right now as far as I see it, denying the problem exists is not helping anyone. It isn't a "subset" it's corrupted all the way to the top levels of government by these criminals.