This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
But even with amnesty and looser immigration laws, a fence on our southern border would be s powerful negative symbolic message to Mexico and Latin America that "we don't want you." It would also inhibit trade. In the end it would weaken, not strengthen, national security.
To what extent? That it will actually alter their behavior? Or just as a "motion" so you can say you are doing "something" even if it has no real teeth to it?
Well any fine is designed to alter behavior. So this one should be too. I don't know how much it should be. Of course this is all a moot discussion, because sadly we'll never have the sort of legal free flow of immigrants that Reagan envisaged. But we should.
It wouldn't inhibit legal trade.
Thats an inaccurate portrayal of my position on the NSA, but I don't want to get into that, as it has nothing to do with this issue.
I agree, the two issues really are distinct. - Personally, I'm not in favor of a fence. Maybe, as Obama suggested in 08, certain fencing in certain key spots could be a good idea. But building a wall up around our country sends the wrong message. However, the whole fence issue does raise the question of how we plan to enforce whatever law we're talking about. I don't see amnesty vs deportation or pathway to citizenship as that big of a deal (aside from anyone arguing we should haul immigrants out of their beds and home throw them into trucks etc.). No matter what we do, whatever everyone is arguing about, doesn't really matter if we cannot formulate a process for actually, physically regulating how many people come in total and from certain countries.
What about Florida? Do we fence out the entire state or maybe reassign the western half of the panhandle to Alabama and save a little on fence expenses?
Does this guy's moral outrage extend to Saudi Arabia?
Are these people any more "scary" than those who like things the way they are in Washington and want to keep them as they are?
McCarthy never could have been a national candidate much less a leading one. This is more like Huey Long, especially the clown/buffoon routine.
Neither is a great analogy but McCarthy is closer in that he appealed to a fear and lack of reason among ordinary Americans- in his case, about Communists within American society, in Trumps case about illegal immigrants.
I see this is meant as a jab at me. If so you misunderstand me. I do want to see change in Washington, but moderate, gradual, rational improvements. I am opposed to populist change which is emotional and irrational (and dangerous).
I think I'll stick with my own analogy, loose as it is. Huey was certainly clownish but didn't make polarizing or hateful comments the way Trump does. Huey's populism was more economic, the haves vs have-nots. Closer to Bernie than to Donald (though Huey was corrupt and Bernie isn't.) Your comparison of Hillary to Joe, which you keep making, is really rather silly IMO.
Stop with this....it's tiresome. Especially when you say "I want things to stay as they are" then tell me that I "misunderstand" you because it's not what you mean even though it's exactly what you say.
I'm sure it was strategy (related to super-pac type stuff) but the fact of Trump taking so much space up is surely not something he anticipated. Monday annoucement clearly was designed to make this a momentum week. Will be interesting if that happens less now b/c of the Donald.
If this was an NCAA bracket they'd force Gimore and Pataki into the play-in game, right?
Things are getting hot between Trump and our neighbors to the south.
or 
?
