Detention of immigrants goes back to the 1890's at Ellis Island, so it's nothing new. These were to screen incoming refugees. What would be new, and is already beginning, would be the mass incarceration of 11 million people who are already in the U.S., with families, holding jobs, and contributing to the U.S. economy and society. The time it would take to deport them all is estimated to be 20 years and cost approximately $500 billion plus a $1.6 trillion drop in the Real GDP. These are conservative estimates. I don't want this to turn into a Bernie or Hillary thread so I'll just say that you're wrong on that point.
The wall. So we need a wall to shut off our southern border, which is 1,954 miles long, give or take a few inches. Estimated cost is about $16 million per mile based on parts of the existing wall built in the easiest areas to build and the existing "wall" is a fence, not a wall in most areas. Total cost, $15 to $25 billion and that doesn't include land acquisition (probably by the liberal policy of eminent domain), roads, labor cost, and drainage. Upkeep per year, $750 million. The wall would need to be at least 5 feet under ground and 20 feet high. It can't be built of cement blocks as that is too labor intensive, steel mesh can be cut or rammed, so that leaves concrete. Concrete is difficult to cast on site due to the heat, so precast units would be needed. It would take over 1 million 10 foot units or 12,600,000 yards of concrete. That's three times the amount used in the Hoover Dam. A volume greater than all six pyramids of the Giza Necropolis or enough to pave a one lane road from New York to Los Angeles, going the long way around the globe. Also we'd need about 5 billion pounds of re-bar. Then we'd have to construct facilities to build these units, and roads to transport them. We could save on labor by hiring Mexicans. But not to worry Mexico will pay for it. How? By Trump changing the USA Patriot Act anti-terrorism law (I guess by executive action) to preclude any money sent by individuals to their families in Mexico by Western Union. Of course it would only be a threat, or blackmail if you will, because if Mexico agreed to a one time payment of $5 to $10 billion dollars...he won't do it. Mexico received about $25 billion in 2015 from Mexicans living abroad and Trump claims most of them are illegal aliens. Of course that figure is worldwide...but let's not let facts get in the way. Of course this assumes that any of this is legal is the first place: What about Mexico? They think he's a Looney Tune. If this policy was enacted their economy would be hit hard, leading to hardships for poor families and more illegal immigrants. So let's assume the wall gets built. After millions spent in court cases, $25 billion in construction and the first yearly upkeep bill for $750 million and the hiring and training of thousands of new border patrol agents..we have a bright shinny wall. Mexico's economy has tanked after they shelled out their share ($10 billion), plus they have absorbed 11 million people who were deported from the U.S and now have no jobs in Mexico and must be supported by the Mexican government or starve. Our debt has increased as Mexico's $10 million wasn't quite enough. Trump has made millions by "wise business practices related to the wall building". Relations with Mexico are at an all time low, except for when we annexed Texas. After years of declining illegal immigration, Mexicans are now trying to enter the U.S in droves again as there is now a huge demand for workers in the U.S. and less jobs in Mexico than before the wall was built. In barren areas they are scaling the wall (walls don't do much if you are free to defeat them, they must be patrolled), or they're digging tunnels all over the place (the proposed wall would only have a 6 foot footer) or they simply fly over it and land in the dessert. Or...here's an idea, they simply go around it via the Gulf of Mexico..ya know something like what they're doing in the Mediterranean. And we haven't looked into the environmental impact.
Moving on to the elimination of gun free zones. I went into this in another thread so I'll just hit it lightly. Once all gun free zones are eliminated anyone can walk into a school with any legal gun, be it shot gun, pistol, assault rifle, or other. They may still have to register at the office but entry can not be denied to those carrying a gun. Nor could the police be called in if an adult suspected the gun carrier was a little "fishy". They would have a right to bring that weapon into the school. Same with a church, hospital, sporting event, dance, bar, casino, grocery store, police station, military base, national monument, White House, political convention, psychiatrist's office, Mosque, airport or plane, etc. In addition no state, city or local government can pass certain gun ordinances...big government eliminates local and state gun control choices. Hell's Angels, religious fundamentalist (including Muslims and Christians), Tea Party members, little old ladies, Nazi party members, Joe Blow down the street, children under 18 in some states, etc....all marching around anywhere they want with guns.
MeAgain All the things you mention – kidnapping, assassination, illegal detention, killing innocent people etc have all been done by the US at one time or another by government employees or through proxies so the precedent is there, so he could do it - but such tactics are usually counterproductive I mean Guantanamo Bay and drone attacks that kill innocent people have been great recruiters for the Jihadists. Again something similar has been tried in relation to entry into the US this was mainly directed at trying to stop communists from entering the US so again there is precedent for Trump to follow. He could take as his model the Smith Act (Alien Registration Act of 1940) The Smith Act set federal criminal penalties that included fines or imprisonment for as long as twenty years and denied all employment by the federal government for five years following a conviction for anyone who: ...with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or...organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof. The Smith Act's prohibition of proselytizing on behalf of revolution repeated language found in previous statutes. It went beyond earlier legislation in outlawing action to "organize any society, group, or assembly" that works toward that end and then extended that prohibition to "membership" or "affiliation"—a term it did not define—with such a group.-Wiki There was a questionnaire that had to be filled out by anyone entering the US and one question was Do you advocate the overthrow of the United States government by force or subversion? Not sure it’s stilled used? The thing to ask yourself is - are terrorists likely to lie? A precedent for this for Trump might be found in the Indian Removal Act of 1830 although that is remembered most for bringing about the Trail of Tears. [SIZE=12pt]I suppose a precedent could be found in the work projects of the New Deal, such as the [/SIZE]Work Projects Administration to bring about the building of the wall. The WPA's initial appropriation in 1935 was for $4.9 billion (about 6.7 percent of the 1935 GDP) Now the GDP of the US in 2013 was about 17 trillion and 5% of that would I believe be $850,000,000,000 But would seem like a waste of money when such a scheme could be used to upgrade the US’s crumbling infrastructure which would have a positive effect on the US’s economy and Americans quality of life rather than being a drag on it.
The advantage of a Trump America instead of a Clinton one is that it will last 4 years max. Certainly if he's as incompetent as we all think he is. That's unfortunate because especially when you say she's wrong on that point it triggers the interest of why exactly? It doesn't have to turn into another Bernie vs Hillary thread if we watch your concern about it
You act like those "4 years" won't matter to those effected by his policies... Of course they won't effect you, so it's all good, right?
First I would hope we learn from past mistakes. 2nd they were not part of a publicly announced government policy. They were, or are, illegal covert actions. And as far as I know these actions were taken against terrorists or suspected terrorists or enemy agents, not innocent civilians. That is not to say that innocent civilians haven't been killed by military or other actions. Of course that happens and has always happened throughout history. As far as drones, I don't know of any intentional drone attack on innocent civilians. (And let's remember civilians are often used as shields) And it is not to condone any of these covert actions, but again they are not publicly promoted policy and are illegal under U.S. and international law. Trump wants to change the law to make them legal. Again we need to learn from past mistakes. The Smith Act was instituted in 1940 just before the U.S. entered the 2nd World War. It was in response to a fear of a fifth column devoloping in the U.S. mainly by Communists and Fascist as Communist at the time were against the war with Hitler. It was enacted in anticipation of the U.S. entering the war and was against political dogmas, not religions. It is directed at those who advocate and plan a forceful overthrow of the U.S. government. It does not prohibit belief or teaching about a forceful overthrow, there must be an intention to act or language intended to incite violence. Trump would ban people based on belief, not planed actions. I am sure Trump would applaud such actions, also the internment of Japanese, Italian, and German Americans that took place in WWII. No, the WPA rebuilt infrastructure the Mexican wall is useless. As you say screw the wall, rebuild our dams. levies, roads, bridges, railroads, etc.
I think you have this in the wrong thread, it was in referral to Hillary not supporting something, I forget what, but she did support it if you do the research. I think it was a comment Meliai made, but I can't find it, you'll have to refresh my memory. .
I can not remember what year they changed the food stamp law to prevent poor people from buying hot chicken at the grocer's deli counter. Many times I saw both hot and cold chicken being sold for exactly the same price. Some one or some party, where they make the laws that govern us, decided to make poverty a little more cruel to the poorest and most vulnerable in America. And many times I saw old folks on social security income looking at trays of drumsticks or breasts and wondering what the ruling class was thinking. If Trumpy wins and we get an all Republican government, millions of old, poor, and disabled folks will likely be kicked out to the curb and left to starve to death or freeze to death.
I hate how HF only gives you like a second to unlike something if you accidentally like instead of quote it. Anyways, it was about deportation raids. It was in this thread. I looked up her stance and it appears I am both right and wrong. I'm sure thos will be deleted for being off topic, but for the sake of clarifying to asmo - A couple of years ago she appeared to support turning migrant children away and sending illegal immigrants back to their home country. After being called out on this by Bernie Sanders in a debate a few months ago it appears her stance has, you guessed it, moved slightly more to the left and she is now in favor of keeping children here and trying to keep families together. Single and childless illegal immigrants are still SOL I guess.
Oh yeah, now I see it! What an idiot, I looked and looked for that! Here's a source that quotes Hillary on immigration raids.
The US government wants the illegal immigration crisis, which is why, even if Trump gets into office, he won't solve the immigration problem... and building a wall amounts to nothing more than talk. If the central bankers don't want it, it isn't going to happen. Presidents don't determine shit. They are figureheads and puppets who get into office making empty promises on the campaign trail which almost never come to fruition, much like Obama's "Hope and Change." This is why we have the US Department of Homeland Security busing illegal immigrants from the border, into US cities, bypassing all of the required processing. http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2016/06/dhs-quietly-moving-releasing-vanloads-illegal-aliens-away-border/ I have to laugh at talk of immigration raids, because while it does happen, it's merely window dressing to make you THINK the government is doing something to stop the wave of undocumented immigration into the country (which THEY are helping to bring in). It's no different from the fucking War on Drugs, where they go after the little guy as the CIA brings planeloads of cocaine and heroin in. It's all about creating an illusion. And yeah, I believe Trump's claim of 30 million illegal immigrants is probably far more accurate than the government's fudged numbers which claim 10 or 11 million.
I believe the government is overlooking the immigrant crisis in so far as they aren't prosecuting the businesses that hire them. But that's business, the country needs them or those businesses fail, and since the Republicans believe in the free market (profit at any cost) that's not going to change anytime soon. That's why a pathway to legal status is needed, but the Republicans don't like that so we're stuck. I do disagree about Presidential power. A simple look at history disproves that theory, e.g. Lincoln's tenure during the Civil War, TR's trust busting, FDR's New Deal, Kennedy's bouts with the U.S.S.R., Johnson's Civil rights advances, GWB's monumental screw-ups, etc....all would have had different outcomes with different men in the White House.
In a Trump presidency I picture him being as confrontational with people who oppose his policies as he has been with his political opponents, thus dividing the country even further. I also see him as being equally confrontational wtih other world leaders, alienating them and making the US increasingly isolated. Trump would react to this by becoming even more confrontational, and where would that lead to? I don't like the idea of Hillary for president either but she's right when she says he doesn't have the temperament to be president. Don't get me wrong, I have doubts about her temperament too. Trump would ruin this country while greatly increasing his personal wealth.
A few world leaders who speak ill of Mr. Trump.... "There have been episodes in the history of humanity, unfortunately, where these expressions, this strident rhetoric has only really been (a) very fateful stage in the history of mankind," he said. "That's how Mussolini got in, that's how Hitler got in." ~ Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. "I'm not going to pay for that (expletive) wall," ~ former Mexican president Vicente Fox. ...the country wouldn’t “pay any single cent for such a stupid wall.” Trump is “not (a) very well informed man…If this guy pretends that closing the borders to anywhere either for trade [or] for people is going to provide prosperity to the United State, he is completely crazy." ~ Former Mexican president Felipe Calderon. “Ultimately being open and respectful towards each other is a much more powerful way to diffuse hatred and anger than … big walls and oppressive policies,” ~ Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. ...Trump and "all these right-wing populists are not only a threat to peace and social cohesion, but also to economic development." ~ German Vice Chancellor Sigma Gabriel. ...Trump's remarks calling for a temporary ban on Muslims to the U.S. are "divisive, stupid and wrong." ~ British Prime Minister David Cameron. .@realDonaldTrump You are a disgrace not only to the GOP but to all America. Withdraw from the U.S presidential race as you will never win. — ?????? ?? ???? (@Alwaleed_Talal) December 11, 2015 ~ Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz al-Saud "A successful politician would not make such statement, (the banning of Muslims) as there are millions of Muslims living in the U.S, I don't know whether or not he'll win, but let's suppose he won. What will happen? Will he set aside all relationships with Muslim countries? A politician shouldn't talk like this." ~ Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. "A person who thinks only about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian," ~ Pope Francis “Donald Trump’s ill-informed comments are complete and utter nonsense, crime has been falling steadily in both London and New York -- and the only reason I wouldn’t go to some parts of New York is the real risk of meeting Donald Trump.” ~ London Mayor Boris Johnson responding to Trump's claim that police are afraid for their lives. "Prime Minister Netanyahu rejects Donald Trump's recent remarks about Muslims, The state of Israel respects all religion and strictly adheres to the rights of all its citizens." ~ The office of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu "Mr. Trump, like others, stokes hatred: our ONLY enemy is radical Islamism." ~ France’s prime minister Manuel Valls. "European diplomats are constantly asking about Trump's rise with disbelief and, now, growing panic," ~ a senior NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity. "All foreign diplomats I’ve talked to are amazed at the Trump phenomenon and worried about it, especially in the Middle East and Europe,” ~ Elliott Abrams, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations think tank. And just to be fair...his supporters. "It turns out that Trump is not the rough-talking, screwy, ignorant candidate they say he is, but is actually a wise politician and a prescient presidential candidate," ~ Han Yong Muk, from a column written in DPRK Today, public relations arm of North Korea “[Donald Trump is] a really brilliant and talented person, without any doubt,” ~ Vladimir Putin I didn't provide sources as I gathered these from around the net...do some research and see if I'm wrong! So under trump..greater world division.
"Constantly choosing between the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil." -- Jerry Garcia "He who is not courageous enough to take risks will accomplish nothing in life." -- Muhammad Ali This election is all about risks. The biggest risk being not to vote for either of these dummies and let the chips fall where they may, sending a message to the establishment that they cannot control our elections. Maybe we can't survive Trump, but what's the point of surviving if that means living under tyranny.
MeAgain I’m not against your analysis of Trumps ideas, I was just pointing out that as mad as they are they have precedence he could use, the US having done is fair share of good and bad things. I always hope - but it has a habit of leading to disappointments, I mean if people looked into the past they would realize that putting their hopes and support in demagogues seldom ends well.
