Donald Trump and US politics

"

Vhlad wrote:

Why are illegal immigrant concerns twisted into immigrant concerns?
In the 90's Bill Clinton did some massive welfare reform that actually targeted legal immigrants (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act). The government could 1. prevent legal immigrants from obtaining means-tested public benefits (i.e. food stamps, TANF, SSI, and SCHIP) for the first 5 years after receiving their permanent residence/green card, and 2. deport legal immigrants if they become unable to provide for themselves within 5 years of receiving LPR/green card. There was no media outcry back then, no mass demonstrations, and no Nazi accusations.

Why is better border security twisted into xenophobia? (Trump's position on building a wall is very similar to Hillary's 2008 position on building a barrier, her support of the 2006 secure fence act, and Bill's 325 mile fence in the 90s).

Why are travel restrictions until better screening is in place, up to 90 days, from countries Obama bombed the fuck out of, destabilized, and sanctioned twisted into an immigration ban? These are countries we can't even safely visit ourselves (avoid all travel alerts), many without a US/Canadian/UK embassy. There's no quid pro quo on safe travel.

In fact, Obama already initiated travel restrictions on anyone who has been to Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen within the last 5 years (the same 7/7 countries on Trump's list), requiring them to obtain a visa to enter the US even if they would normally be exempt. Obama also banned immigration from Iraq for 6 months in 2011 (he delayed processing until they could enact a more stringent vetting process). Bush restricted travel to the US from these same 7 countries after 911 (unanimous support from congress).

The MSM isn't being objective or honest about this stuff. There's so much emotional/irrational outrage and hypocritical bullshit. I swear if people keep calling it a muslim ban I'm going to burst a blood vessel.

Edit: I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of it, I'm just peeved at the dishonesty and hysteria.

After Trump's executive order came out, I heard it called a Muslim ban before I could find the full text. Some hours later I found it and read the primary source in full. I couldn't see what all the fuss was about; the EO was many things, but not what people were saying about it in mainstream media, and then repeated by the left in comment sections everywhere, was simply not true.

Then the Ninth Circuit did their ruling on it, and I heard it called legislating from the bench. I found the full text and read the primary source. The Ninth had a solid line of argument calling the constitutionally of Trump's order into question, something I'd missed in my earlier reading of the EO, and I had to admit I'd been swayed. But it was a relatively boring argument — Due Process Clause tends to be — and given the previous mass confusion about what the EO even was, trying to explain to lefties what part of it was unconditional how was an exercise in futility. Meanwhile, the Ninth's opinion was many things, but what people were saying about it in right-wing media like Breitbart, and then repeated by the right in comment settings everywhere, was simply not true.

Then I guess people would think that, because I think the EO was unconstitutional, that I'm against what Trump was trying to do. No, it had one poorly thought-out section that might have infringed on some rights if it wasn't very promptly restrained by our fully-functioning system of governmental checks and balances. Change the section to fix the error, then enforce the rest. Simple. But it seems you're unpopular with everyone if you hold the twin views that the intent of the EO was righteous, and the execution unconstitutional.

At any point in this, halfway educated people could just google the full text, like I did, and read the primary source. But no, that would make too much fucking sense. Instead, they need to get their narrative from someone else, and those someones — regardless of party affiliation — just have to give them bullshit false narratives instead of a halfway competent analysis (from what I saw, anyway, except for Michael "Lionel" LeBron of YouTube and RT guest spot fame). Goddamnit, people. Stop trusting so blindly.

"

Vhlad wrote:

Here are two quotes from some of the organizers of the 'Day Without Immigrants' protests (one from Facebook, plastered by the MSM everywhere, and the other by the director of a nonprofit serving the Latino community):

"

For one single day on a weekday, we must come together and unite in absolute resistance in order to reject the system dictating the launch from dehumanisation and blatant oppression of those that are not straight, white, natural-born citizens

"

Our goal is to highlight the need for Philadelphia to expand policies that stop criminalising communities of colour

???? what the fuck is that, the media (and these event organizers) should be castigated for twisting the illegal immigration discussion into racism/homophobia or a slight against all immigrants.

Nobody on the left actually cares about immigrants qua immigrants. Do you think white immigrants from the UK were even asked? They care about immigrants because of the correlation between immigration status and ethnic minority status. If they couldn't twist immigration into a race issue, it wouldn't even be one of their issues.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

Quote, um, me:

"I wonder if anyone here would actually be interested in supporting their claim that CNN (or, for that matter, the New York Times, which was also barred from the press conference) is "fake news". And perhaps defining what the hell they mean by "fake news", because last I checked, FOX was there, and FOX is perhaps the most consistently dishonest mainstream cable news network currently on air, at least until we get the Breitbart Channel."

CNN's reporting is often vapid. I'll freely admit that.

It's really much more than a certain vapidness that stems from a need to fill a 24 hr cycle.

For starters, "fake news" is not a literal description of what's wrong with the MSM, though certainly they can put stuff out that's outright false.

From what I observe, the term is shorthand for the confluence of various practices that these outlets execute on a daily basis which consistently violate any sort of journalistic ethics that are supposed to be adhered to.

The primary one, which IMO is also the most dangerous, is the seamless integration of editorializing in what is otherwise a straight news story. This happens all the time. It's not as though an anchor or field reporter on CNN stops in the middle of a report to say "I'm about to give my opinion", and then proceeds. Instead, in the same breath they switch between facts and editorial. This is doubly unethical, as on top of providing opinion there is zero corresponding attribution for whatever is about to be said.

Since we're on CNN (all of this of course applies to the big three cable news outlets), I believe their main "objective" news hour guy is still Wolf Blitzer? 2pm pacific slot?

Listen to an hour of him. He does it all the time. An example that comes to mind was last year a senate meeting I believe between Democrats and Republicans. One party declined to show for the day, and rescheduled. That's the news part. Wolf says this and in the same breath follows up saying something along the lines of "boy that party that was cancelled on must be really mad and frustrated, what gives?". Turns out, the cancellation was a procedural formality and the meeting itself was scheduled the next day. NEITHER political side was upset. But if you listened to Wolf in the moment it would reinforce whatever opinion you had about dysfunctional government/obstructionism and so on, all the while expecting to hear "the news". Third ethical violation: You think Wolf corrected himself the following day and apologized? Of course not. A big problem in the MSM is that they are almost never, ever, ever held accountable for anything they say. It's crazy stuff. They report Trump has hookers piss on him. Zero repercussion. I say "black" instead of "African American" I'm liable to be called a racist white privileged shitbag on 95% of universities.

2nd issue which makes them "fake news" is outright false reporting based on either a preconceived narrative or from cherry picking and purposely providing zero context (another ethical violation). I watched the entire Trump news conference the other day where it was just him and the media, the one where he was basically dressing them down. Now, say what you will about his content, but of all the times he's a braggart/blowhard, this was him at his most tame. He took questions, he didn't yell at someone, no crazy arm flailing, etc. How was the conference immediately characterized upon its conclusion: "Trump's unhinged". That's objectively false.

As for preconceived narratives, this was almost a daily occurrence on CNN during the DNC primaries. Bernie would win northeast states, but in every projection given for delegate total Tapper and King and whoever else automatically baked in super delegates and declared Bernie's win both impossible and altogether meaningless to that point, despite his showing in states that were going to be at play in the general, and despite Clinton winning irrelevant states in the South. I don't care whatsoever about Sanders, but it was clear that was no objective news reporting for months and months and months.

3rd issue which makes them "fake news" is the preponderance of pundits nowadays. You talk about nonsense. It's one thing to bring in a former DNC/RNC "strategist" (whatever that is) to talk about campaign strategy, but then they leave these jerkoffs on the panel to simulatenously talk about domestic politics, international relation theory, cyber concerns, the best Ben n Jerry flavor, etc.

Sensationalism might very well be a minor crime, as you say, but it ranks among the lowest concerns on the short list of why people neither trust nor have any patience anymore for these people. The term "fake news" is just a catchy label for all this nonsense. Amid all of it that's been going for many years (well before Trump came on the scene), these networks have the audacity to claim the importance of free and fair press. That's great in the abstract, but in what fantasy world are these people fair? It's a cesspool of sanctimony. That you think this only characterizes Fox News is quite a strange assumption in 2017. It's everywhere, including print.

Rachel Maddow anchored MSNBC election night coverage. She signed off by telling the audience that this was not some terrible, terrible dream and that you haven't gone to hell.

These are the people upon which a democracy depends to remain free and prosperous? This is "real" news? No, it's something else.

Yeah it's something else all right. We call it bullshit.

"

Vhlad wrote:

Here are two quotes from some of the organizers of the 'Day Without Immigrants' protests (one from Facebook, plastered by the MSM everywhere, and the other by the director of a nonprofit serving the Latino community):

"

For one single day on a weekday, we must come together and unite in absolute resistance in order to reject the system dictating the launch from dehumanisation and blatant oppression of those that are not straight, white, natural-born citizens

"

Our goal is to highlight the need for Philadelphia to expand policies that stop criminalising communities of colour

???? what the fuck is that, the media (and these event organizers) should be castigated for twisting the illegal immigration discussion into racism/homophobia or a slight against all immigrants.

Meanwhile, this week in South Africa: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4256962/Violent-clashes-South-Africans-immigrants.html

Yes the marches were anti illegal immigrant marches, but there is widespread xenophobia and hate toward even legal immigrants in South Africa. You have angry mobs attacking and looting foreign owned businesses and rioting.

That's not what's happening in the US, despite what the hysterical reactions and hyperbole suggest. America is still one of the most immigrant friendly places on earth. If the 63 million people who voted for Trump were actually Nazis, the US would look completely different.

You should read the fine print. It include everything not explicitly stated, subjected to changes and things you didn't know about. It include everything that they could possibly do, and probably didn't vote for.

Nice posts. Some people are going to see the text walls and have aneurysms. I will add more.

My own stance on illegal immigration/undocumented workers:

The US should have a process for the naturalization of illegals, and aim to naturalize as many of them as they can. It's more cost effective to keep the people we have, if they've been working and staying out of trouble.

The UK tried something similar where thousands of squatters were able to hide from authorities for long enough to be granted rights (and promptly go on welfare). That kind of thing is easy to avoid, if you build some sensible criteria into the naturalization process, i.e.
- language test (potentially waived if they've been here a long time and have kids/relatives who know the language)
- knowledge of culture
- a pledge of allegiance
- criminal background check
- property rental/ownership or relatives to live with or minimum asset requirements or employment income or an offer of employment or a legally responsible sponsor
- limited benefits eligibility until X taxes are paid or Y amount of time or Z condition

Perhaps even mass permanent residency/work eligibility with no condition, followed by a review after X years to naturalize or deport based on how they've performed.

Wouldn't it be great to see 10+ million illegals naturalized, with faster processing for prospective immigrants, better border security, and actual enforcement post naturalization? Shouldn't the media discussion focus on that, instead of hate and hysteria?

Why aren't people protesting for a legal naturalization process instead of holding stupid signs, screaming at straight white people (what the fuck does that have to do with anything?), and telling legal immigrants to skip work? Shouldn't people on every side of the political spectrum be protesting against the exploitation of illegal immigrant labor: paying them less and/or giving them poor working conditions because of their status?

Shouldn't we want higher quality jobs (and competitive fairness) for everyone, rather than limit opportunities for people entering the work force because it's more advantageous to hire an illegal who is scared to complain about anything and pay them half? (executive pay and profits have skyrocketed, the wealth gap is not even a gap any more it's like a separate fucking planet - we can afford to pay the min wage instead of hiring illegals at half the min wage).

The problem is, until the US has better border security and immigration enforcement in place, it could be detrimental to hint at a naturalization program because many more people would try to rush in, and the processing will be overloaded as-is.

In 2006 Canada ruled out amnesty for our estimated 200k-500k undocumented workers because: "It's not fair to those who have applied legally and are waiting in line" and "allowing illegal workers to stay could encourage more illegal immigration." Yeah, ok, but there should be a legal naturalization process for the people already here. If we have hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers who've been here for 3+ years our government has already shit the bed and needs to fix it. A naturalization process is not the same as amnesty. Just make it harder / require more than applying and waiting normally.

(And fix the processing/wait times, seriously hire a bunch of computer savvy young people or at least set some minimum performance standards for individual employees. I went to renew my passport recently and there were all these old farts working like slugs with one single young person. I was in line for 1 hour assessing productivity and the young person processed more people than the other 8 workers combined).

"

Vhlad wrote:

My own stance on illegal immigration/undocumented workers:

stance

The US should have a process for the naturalization of illegals, and aim to naturalize as many of them as they can. It's more cost effective to keep the people we have, if they've been working and staying out of trouble.

The UK tried something similar where thousands of squatters were able to hide from authorities for long enough to be granted rights (and promptly go on welfare). That kind of thing is easy to avoid, if you build some sensible criteria into the naturalization process, i.e.
- language test (potentially waived if they've been here a long time and have kids/relatives who know the language)
- knowledge of culture
- a pledge of allegiance
- criminal background check
- property rental/ownership or relatives to live with or minimum asset requirements or employment income or an offer of employment or a legally responsible sponsor
- limited benefits eligibility until X taxes are paid or Y amount of time or Z condition

Perhaps even mass permanent residency/work eligibility with no condition, followed by a review after X years to naturalize or deport based on how they've performed.

Wouldn't it be great to see 10+ million illegals naturalized, with faster processing for prospective immigrants, better border security, and actual enforcement post naturalization? Shouldn't the media discussion focus on that, instead of hate and hysteria?

Why aren't people protesting for a legal naturalization process instead of holding stupid signs, screaming at straight white people (what the fuck does that have to do with anything?), and telling legal immigrants to skip work? Shouldn't people on every side of the political spectrum be protesting against the exploitation of illegal immigrant labor: paying them less and/or giving them poor working conditions because of their status?

Shouldn't we want higher quality jobs (and competitive fairness) for everyone, rather than limit opportunities for people entering the work force because it's more advantageous to hire an illegal who is scared to complain about anything and pay them half? (executive pay and profits have skyrocketed, the wealth gap is not even a gap any more it's like a separate fucking planet - we can afford to pay the min wage instead of hiring illegals at half the min wage).

The problem is, until the US has better border security and immigration enforcement in place, it could be detrimental to hint at a naturalization program because many more people would try to rush in, and the processing will be overloaded as-is.

In 2006 Canada ruled out amnesty for our estimated 200k-500k undocumented workers because: "It's not fair to those who have applied legally and are waiting in line" and "allowing illegal workers to stay could encourage more illegal immigration." Yeah, ok, but there should be a legal naturalization process for the people already here. If we have hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers who've been here for 3+ years our government has already shit the bed and needs to fix it. A naturalization process is not the same as amnesty. Just make it harder / require more than applying and waiting normally.

(And fix the processing/wait times, seriously hire a bunch of computer savvy young people or at least set some minimum performance standards for individual employees. I went to renew my passport recently and there were all these old farts working like slugs with one single young person. I was in line for 1 hour assessing productivity and the young person processed more people than the other 8 workers combined).

I mostly agree with your stance.

The difference between Canada and America (based off my work in IT near the border) is:
1. Human resources are diverted to enforcement and other administration more then processing, because paperwork isn't sexy politically. So take those 9 employees and split them off into 3 branches with 3 workers each.
2. Whenever there's any issue with immigration, politicians add steps to the process "for added security;" they never take any away. As a result, each immigrant requires ten times the paperwork.

Thus, legal immigration into the US is a Kafkaesque nightmare, hence the popularity of the illegal variety. Rather than fix the core issues, US politicians have created an environment where illegal immigration is actually fostered. And Trump wants to make the vetting process more intensive... Performed by a workforce that's 60+% incompetent...

My country needs immigration reform on the processing level first. Widespread illegal immigration is but a symptom of this root problem. I'm not anti-wall — physical border security is an issue as far as drug running and human trafficking go — but it's silly to pretend it has much of anything to do with immigration, as most illegal aliens enter just about as easily as a US citizen crossing into Canada for tourism.

"

- criminal background check

Then bye. Its a felony to come here w/o permission. Moreover fixed resources makes its dumb as fuck. Look at china. 60 application for a mcdonalds job and most have degrees. Most mired in destitution and poverty. Get u6 full employment and i'm down otherwise liek senator Cotton said " The powerful & elite reap the benefits of constant influx of low-skill labor while working Americans & recent immigrants bear the costs."

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

A friendly reminder, at this point, that at no point did President Obama bar FOX News, a far more clearly partisan and dishonest news network, from any of his events.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/documents-show-obama-white-house-attacked-excluded-fox-news-channel/

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

kolyaboo wrote:

Wait! Didn't the WH in early Obama days as in Rahm Emmanuel do something similar w/Fox? I seem to recall something like this reported by ABC? Am I crazy?

Well, one of the nice things about the internet is that things don't tend to go away. I'm sure if this actually happened, you can find it. ;)

2012 Benghazi conference call:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVwuQrQHvfI

When you consider that Fox News broke the Benghazi story, this was an absolute disgrace.

"

Vhlad wrote:

N

The US should have a process for the naturalization of illegals, and aim to naturalize as many of them as they can. It's more cost effective to keep the people we have, if they've been working and staying out of trouble.

IIRC - This has been done twice in the past 30 years, and both times it just encouraged even more illegal immigration by people who were certain that future rounds of amnesty would occur.

The reasons the extent of immigration has not been properly reigned in before are primarily:

1)They are a large source of future voting for democrats

2)Small business owners and corporations exploit them for their own financial gain (slightly less wage costs, and a large savings in federal funds that must be submitted - both when employees are off the books and when they are on the books in a "fudged" manner.

In addition - They saved a lot of churches from dying off and revived many of them. They provided a cause célèbre for academia and SJW.

Hence the GOP/DEM game plan was to continue to allow a massive influx and dance around any issues with periodic amnesties.

The GOP participated because of the money from businesses to their candidates - and they thought the two younger Bushes, Cruz and Rubio would draw large support from them.

The DEM participated because of the money from businesses to their candidates - and they were receiving a quickly increasing voter base in these areas. Colorado, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico used to swing far more to the GOP side than they did the DEM side before immigration shifted the vote.

Yes, with the low birth rate of many US citizens, the US will need a significant influx of immigrants to keep from dying off economically. That immigration needs to be done in a controlled and legal manner.

If countries like Mexico, that do have a large number of migrants here, cooperate with the new administration, they will end up with larger numbers allowed into the US. If they fight Trump, their numbers will be cut down drastically.

Most immigrants are hard working moral people. The illegality of the current situations allows a disproportionate number of people who aren't good people to come across and for cartels to both profit from the border crossings and use the immigrants as drug mules.

Someone can look for a citation for this if they wish, but the number I have often seen is that 80%+ of the women who come across the border illegally are raped and have learned to accept that as part of the ordeal. I'm not sure that number is accurate, but the number of immigrants who are murdered along the way (by those coming across illegally) seems to increase every year.

It is a horrible situation, and no one has been willing to try and fix it for a long time.