User Tag List

Page 30 of 72 FirstFirst ... 202728293031323340 ... LastLast
Results 436 to 450 of 1068

Thread: Why Don't the Liberals Want a Wall?

  1. #436
    TOL Subscriber musterion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    22,202
    Thanks
    4,462
    Thanked 20,970 Times in 11,987 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147769
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    Are you slow?

    Eminent domain. No Trump didn't invent it.

    Imagine having the government take your land from you because...they can. 66% of land along the border is privately owned. This would have to be one of the bigger government land grabs in US history if the wall is to be actualized.

    Here
    Tell the class the origin of Eminent Domain, please.
    "There is one thing worse than going to Hell. That would be going to Hell and having it be a surprise."
    Terence Mc Lean

    [most will be very surprised]


    Everyone who has not believed the Gospel of grace is not saved, no matter what else they believe or do.
    By that measure, how many professing Christians are on their way to the Lake of Fire?

  2. #437
    Over 5000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,318
    Thanks
    2,105
    Thanked 2,529 Times in 1,418 Posts

    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1360867
    Quote Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
    There is also the problem of water rights which in Texas is a VERY big deal. Building that wall would be essentially ceding the Rio Grande to Mexico.
    It's almost like this grand wall idea wasn't thought through very thoroughly...


    Border landowners also know the wall is not a given. The House Homeland Security Committee passed a bill in October that would set aside $10 billion for the wall, but getting the Senate to agree to pay poses a problem for the administration.

    Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, the leading Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, released a report in November stating that the administration could not say how many U.S. citizens will have their land seized, even though it is seeking $1.8 million to fund 20 new positions, including 12 more land acquisition attorneys to file eminent domain lawsuits.

    East of the Roosevelt Reservation, building a wall poses a logistical challenge because ownership becomes murky. Although the federal government is the nation’s single largest property owner along the southwest border, most of the land belongs to state governments or private owners.

    In its efforts to seize land to build a fence, the federal government has struggled to identify owners, particularly in Starr County in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, where spotty records date back 250 years in some cases.

    Historically, some who challenged the government’s action to take their land have found the effort worthwhile. During the last big push to build fencing under President George W. Bush, the government purchased 125 acres for $1.5 million – an average of $12,000 an acre – according to statistics provided in May by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That building boom mostly came to a halt in 2011 with President Barack Obama’s declaration that the border fence was essentially complete.

    For nearly a decade, one property owner has fought eminent domain proceedings targeting more than 1,200 acres he owns in Starr County – the largest single portion of land sought by the federal government. But David Guerra, who practices law in McAllen, didn’t want to talk about it.

    “I’m in negotiations with the government and not in a position to discuss this right now,” he said in October.

    Fencing already parallels some sections of the international border here, but where and why does not make sense to ranchers such as Kelly Kimbro, who both owns and leases land that abuts about 150 acres of the Roosevelt easement, where there is fencing.

    Kimbro, who lives in Cochise County, Arizona, said roads built to facilitate fence construction have attracted drug trafficking, as they have given smugglers better access to the border. She said there’s no need for more fence, let alone a wall.

    “The government has to quit throwing border security around and disrespecting American citizens,” said Kimbro, who for 30 years has been the face of firearms manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Co. as its so-called Ruger Girl. “I don’t care what you build. People are going to come through. Vehicles come more now than they used to when we had barbed-wire fence.”

    Buffett and Moody. Walmart and Anheuser-Busch. Names of some of the wealthiest American families and companies pop up along the border, where they have invested in vast swaths of land for conservation and their own retreats.

    But you won’t find most of them in property records. Instead, their ownership of the southern border hides behind other names, such as Iroquois and Geronimo.

    To unveil the true owners, Reveal researched property ownership, including cross-referencing property records with documents filed with state offices.

    Howard G. Buffett, the oldest son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett, controls Iroquois LLC’s roughly 360 acres of southeastern Arizona land that touches the border through his namesake foundation. Howard Buffett has used the arid land to study agricultural practices that could be used to address famine in Africa.

    “You don’t buy land here,” he told Arizona Public Media in 2016. “You buy water.”

    A virtual wall or natural barrier are among the alternatives suggested by some of those along the border. Building a physical barrier, they say, will only cede American land south of the wall to Mexico.

    “All a wall does is devalue property,” said Tom Bowles Jr., who retired from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2007 after more than three decades in law enforcement. “Every rancher along the border knows the wall doesn’t work.”

    Bowles is glad the government has not fenced his land in Quemado, Texas. But with 76 acres of riverfront that has been a drug-trafficking thoroughfare for more than three decades, he said it’s about time officials did something. He has invited the Border Patrol to erect a tower with remote-controlled surveillance cameras on his ranchland.

    “Put the g**damn camera on my property,” Bowles said. “Let’s cut the bs and stop hiring Border Patrol agents. Pretty soon, they’ll be able to hold hands (all the way) along the border.”

    For some ranchers, the preferred term for protecting the land is conservation. For other property owners, it’s about saving not only the family land, but the environment, too.

    Arizona residents Valer Clark and ex-husband Josiah Austin have worked to restore and preserve natural grassland and ranches along the southwest border. Those restoration efforts have greater potential to stem the flow of drugs or people than Trump’s proposed wall, Clark said.

    “People crossing on foot have a bloody hard time coming upriver now,” she said. “Those dry washes used to be the highway for coming across.”




    Interesting article. The government would be in for a long legal battle if they think they're going to just put a wall anywhere they feel like.
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

    Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to WizardofOz For Your Post:

    drbrumley (January 11th, 2019)

  4. #438
    Super Moderator JudgeRightly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    On the road
    Posts
    8,907
    Thanks
    30,784
    Thanked 7,827 Times in 4,950 Posts

    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147622
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    It's almost like this grand wall idea wasn't thought through very thoroughly...


    Border landowners also know the wall is not a given. The House Homeland Security Committee passed a bill in October that would set aside $10 billion for the wall, but getting the Senate to agree to pay poses a problem for the administration.

    Sen. Claire McCaskill of Missouri, the leading Democrat on the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, released a report in November stating that the administration could not say how many U.S. citizens will have their land seized, even though it is seeking $1.8 million to fund 20 new positions, including 12 more land acquisition attorneys to file eminent domain lawsuits.

    East of the Roosevelt Reservation, building a wall poses a logistical challenge because ownership becomes murky. Although the federal government is the nation’s single largest property owner along the southwest border, most of the land belongs to state governments or private owners.

    In its efforts to seize land to build a fence, the federal government has struggled to identify owners, particularly in Starr County in the lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, where spotty records date back 250 years in some cases.

    Historically, some who challenged the government’s action to take their land have found the effort worthwhile. During the last big push to build fencing under President George W. Bush, the government purchased 125 acres for $1.5 million – an average of $12,000 an acre – according to statistics provided in May by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. That building boom mostly came to a halt in 2011 with President Barack Obama’s declaration that the border fence was essentially complete.

    For nearly a decade, one property owner has fought eminent domain proceedings targeting more than 1,200 acres he owns in Starr County – the largest single portion of land sought by the federal government. But David Guerra, who practices law in McAllen, didn’t want to talk about it.

    “I’m in negotiations with the government and not in a position to discuss this right now,” he said in October.

    Fencing already parallels some sections of the international border here, but where and why does not make sense to ranchers such as Kelly Kimbro, who both owns and leases land that abuts about 150 acres of the Roosevelt easement, where there is fencing.

    Kimbro, who lives in Cochise County, Arizona, said roads built to facilitate fence construction have attracted drug trafficking, as they have given smugglers better access to the border. She said there’s no need for more fence, let alone a wall.

    “The government has to quit throwing border security around and disrespecting American citizens,” said Kimbro, who for 30 years has been the face of firearms manufacturer Sturm, Ruger & Co. as its so-called Ruger Girl. “I don’t care what you build. People are going to come through. Vehicles come more now than they used to when we had barbed-wire fence.”

    Buffett and Moody. Walmart and Anheuser-Busch. Names of some of the wealthiest American families and companies pop up along the border, where they have invested in vast swaths of land for conservation and their own retreats.

    But you won’t find most of them in property records. Instead, their ownership of the southern border hides behind other names, such as Iroquois and Geronimo.

    To unveil the true owners, Reveal researched property ownership, including cross-referencing property records with documents filed with state offices.

    Howard G. Buffett, the oldest son of billionaire investor Warren Buffett, controls Iroquois LLC’s roughly 360 acres of southeastern Arizona land that touches the border through his namesake foundation. Howard Buffett has used the arid land to study agricultural practices that could be used to address famine in Africa.

    “You don’t buy land here,” he told Arizona Public Media in 2016. “You buy water.”

    A virtual wall or natural barrier are among the alternatives suggested by some of those along the border. Building a physical barrier, they say, will only cede American land south of the wall to Mexico.

    “All a wall does is devalue property,” said Tom Bowles Jr., who retired from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2007 after more than three decades in law enforcement. “Every rancher along the border knows the wall doesn’t work.”

    Bowles is glad the government has not fenced his land in Quemado, Texas. But with 76 acres of riverfront that has been a drug-trafficking thoroughfare for more than three decades, he said it’s about time officials did something. He has invited the Border Patrol to erect a tower with remote-controlled surveillance cameras on his ranchland.

    “Put the g**damn camera on my property,” Bowles said. “Let’s cut the bs and stop hiring Border Patrol agents. Pretty soon, they’ll be able to hold hands (all the way) along the border.”

    For some ranchers, the preferred term for protecting the land is conservation. For other property owners, it’s about saving not only the family land, but the environment, too.

    Arizona residents Valer Clark and ex-husband Josiah Austin have worked to restore and preserve natural grassland and ranches along the southwest border. Those restoration efforts have greater potential to stem the flow of drugs or people than Trump’s proposed wall, Clark said.

    “People crossing on foot have a bloody hard time coming upriver now,” she said. “Those dry washes used to be the highway for coming across.”




    Interesting article. The government would be in for a long legal battle if they think they're going to just put a wall anywhere they feel like.
    It's almost like the government is too inefficient to accomplish what it's responsible for...



    Oh wait... it is.

  5. #439
    Over 5000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,318
    Thanks
    2,105
    Thanked 2,529 Times in 1,418 Posts

    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1360867
    Quote Originally Posted by musterion View Post
    Tell the class the origin of Eminent Domain, please.

    I thought Trump invented it...
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

    Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to WizardofOz For Your Post:

    drbrumley (January 11th, 2019)

  7. #440
    Over 5000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,318
    Thanks
    2,105
    Thanked 2,529 Times in 1,418 Posts

    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1360867
    Quote Originally Posted by musterion View Post
    Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005),[1]was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

    Kelo didn't bother leftists, but this will. Selective outrage is false outrage.

    The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) went a step further and affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5–4 decision received heavy press coverage and inspired a public outcry criticizing eminent domain powers as too broad. In reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering state legislation that would further define and restrict the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock [2004]), Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney [2006]), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.

    The redevelopment in New London, the subject of the Kelo decision, proved to be a failure and as of ten years after the court's decision nothing was built on the taken land in spite of the expenditure of over $100 million in public funds. The Pfizer corporation, which owned a $300 million research facility in the area, and would have been the primary beneficiary of the additional development, announced in 2009 that it would close its facility, and did so shortly before the expiration of its 10-year tax abatement agreement with the city.[14] The facility was subsequently purchased in 2010 for just $55 million by General Dynamics Electric Boat.



    I guess it didn't go so well for New London...did it?

    And this case has nothing to do with a border wall as that would be government owned and maintained. Nothing is being transferred from one private owner to another private owner.

    Explain how you think Kelo is relevant to the wall...what do "leftists" have to do with any of this to begin with? You're quite the partisan hack, aren't you? You seem to think that republican ideas are good one by default just as democrat ideas are bad by default. You're wholly incapable of critical and unbiased independent analysis.

    Go make some more orange man bad posts, ya
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

    Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

  8. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WizardofOz For Your Post:

    drbrumley (January 11th, 2019),Rusha (January 12th, 2019)

  9. #441
    TOL Subscriber musterion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    22,202
    Thanks
    4,462
    Thanked 20,970 Times in 11,987 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147769
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    What an evasive little leftist you are. Naughty.
    "There is one thing worse than going to Hell. That would be going to Hell and having it be a surprise."
    Terence Mc Lean

    [most will be very surprised]


    Everyone who has not believed the Gospel of grace is not saved, no matter what else they believe or do.
    By that measure, how many professing Christians are on their way to the Lake of Fire?

  10. #442
    TOL Subscriber musterion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    22,202
    Thanks
    4,462
    Thanked 20,970 Times in 11,987 Posts

    Blog Entries
    4
    Mentioned
    63 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147769
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) went a step further and affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5–4 decision received heavy press coverage and inspired a public outcry criticizing eminent domain powers as too broad. In reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering state legislation that would further define and restrict the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock [2004]), Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney [2006]), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.

    The redevelopment in New London, the subject of the Kelo decision, proved to be a failure and as of ten years after the court's decision nothing was built on the taken land in spite of the expenditure of over $100 million in public funds. The Pfizer corporation, which owned a $300 million research facility in the area, and would have been the primary beneficiary of the additional development, announced in 2009 that it would close its facility, and did so shortly before the expiration of its 10-year tax abatement agreement with the city.[14] The facility was subsequently purchased in 2010 for just $55 million by General Dynamics Electric Boat.



    I guess it didn't go so well for New London...did it?

    And this case has nothing to do with a border wall as that would be government owned and maintained. Nothing is being transferred from one private owner to another private owner.

    Explain how you think Kelo is relevant to the wall...what do "leftists" have to do with any of this to begin with? You're quite the partisan hack, aren't you? You seem to think that republican ideas are good one by default just as democrat ideas are bad by default. You're wholly incapable of critical and unbiased independent analysis.

    Go make some more orange man bad posts, ya
    Tell the class the origin of Eminent Domain, please.
    "There is one thing worse than going to Hell. That would be going to Hell and having it be a surprise."
    Terence Mc Lean

    [most will be very surprised]


    Everyone who has not believed the Gospel of grace is not saved, no matter what else they believe or do.
    By that measure, how many professing Christians are on their way to the Lake of Fire?

  11. #443
    Over 5000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,318
    Thanks
    2,105
    Thanked 2,529 Times in 1,418 Posts

    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1360867
    Quote Originally Posted by musterion View Post
    What an evasive little leftist you are. Naughty.
    I'm not a leftist you Republican hack
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

    Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WizardofOz For Your Post:

    drbrumley (January 11th, 2019),Rusha (January 12th, 2019)

  13. #444
    Over 5000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,318
    Thanks
    2,105
    Thanked 2,529 Times in 1,418 Posts

    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1360867
    Quote Originally Posted by musterion View Post
    Tell the class the origin of Eminent Domain, please.
    Explain the relevance of the Kelo decision as it pertains to a border wall.

    You have no idea what you're talking about, that much is clear
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

    Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WizardofOz For Your Post:

    drbrumley (January 11th, 2019),Rusha (January 12th, 2019)

  15. #445
    TOL Legend The Barbarian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    9,435
    Thanks
    195
    Thanked 3,021 Times in 2,027 Posts

    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    401808
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    I'm not a leftist you Republican hack
    In republicanspeak, "rational" = "leftist."
    Let's say that I suffer from a delusion. I will call this delusion "Fact-check Syndrome." I respond by citing facts.

    Most people online don't want to be corrected. They do not care about anything that does not agree with them.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to The Barbarian For Your Post:

    Rusha (January 11th, 2019)

  17. #446
    Over 5000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,318
    Thanks
    2,105
    Thanked 2,529 Times in 1,418 Posts

    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1360867
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry Shugart View Post
    Why would anyone not want a wall?
    The premise of the OP is flawed. It's not just "liberals" who don't want a wall.

    Immigration hardliners know the wall is a bad idea


    The tell here is that when congressional Democrats started getting close to a deal that would swap help for DREAMers for wall money, immigration hawks swooped in — not with quibbles about the details but with a huge set of unrelated demands.

    As Dara Lind wrote in January, the White House’s proposed framework for a deal ultimately included “an overhaul of asylum laws, stepped-up interior enforcement, and a broad crackdown on legal immigration on the scale of the Trump-endorsed RAISE Act.” The RAISE Act is a plan to cut legal immigration levels in half, which illustrates how little immigration restrictionists are actually focused on the nominal border security debate that has shut the government down.

    But that’s the point. If your goal is to reduce the number of foreign-born people living in the United States by any means necessary, then building an extra 700 miles of border wall is not particularly useful. So extending a path to citizenship for DREAMers or anyone else in exchange for a not-very-useful wall is an unattractive deal.

    By the same token, if the wall were extremely useful, then Trump could seek to offset its cost by reducing spending on some other aspect of immigration enforcement. But because the wall is a bad idea, that would be a bad deal and he wouldn’t offer it. He also obviously can’t offer to offset the cost with higher taxes on the rich because that would blow up the Republican Party coalition — a coalition that’s happy to exploit the border wall issue for partisan gain but that at its core is supposed to be delivering money to rich people.



    MOST TEXANS ALONG THE BORDER DON’T WANT TRUMP’S WALL, AND MANY DOUBT IT WILL BE BUILT

    Many Texans who live along the U.S.-Mexico border support President Donald Trump, but their affection for the New York real estate mogul-turned-politician comes with a caveat:

    They do not want a wall.

    The Star-Telegram recently visited a 325-mile stretch of the Lone Star State’s boundary with Mexico to gauge attitudes toward the proposed wall. The trip included stops in Presidio, Big Bend National Park, Del Rio and Eagle Pass in late April, and visits with a farmer, a rancher, a wildlife biologist, a sheriff and people from many other walks of life.

    The reasons for their opposition to the wall are as varied as the communities that sit along the Rio Grande. Some are concerned about losing private land to make room for the structure. Others warned that building a continuous wall could cause massive flooding. Still others spoke against the potential impact on wildlife, and the state’s natural landscape.

    And many border residents said they had serious doubts that such a wall would succeed in reducing illegal immigration or drug smuggling — the primary justifications often cited by supporters.

    “Trump has done some good things with immigration, but he’s 100 percent wrong about the wall,” said Dob Cunningham, 83, a lifelong rancher and retired Border Patrol agent who owns hundreds of acres abutting the border in Quemado, north of Eagle Pass. “I haven’t found anybody — and I know people from Nogales [Arizona] to Brownsville — who wants that wall.”

    Statewide, 61 percent of Texans oppose building a wall, while 35 percent support it and 4 percent don’t know or declined to answer, according to a poll conducted in April by Texas Lyceum, a nonprofit leadership organization.

    Residents of the Lone Star State who live, work and play along the international boundary with Mexico say they are happy that the Trump administration’s plans to quickly build the wall have encountered complications in Washington.



    “The people of the country” don’t agree with Trump on the shutdown or on the wall.


    We looked at this last month, considering polling that showed that most Americans don’t support building a wall and that most think a shutdown should be avoided.

    Trump’s discussion of what the American people want, though, is often a shorthand meant to refer to a specific subset of the American population: his base of supporters. There certainly are people who want the wall to be built, most of whom are Republicans and most of whom approve of the job Trump is doing. If that’s your definition of “the people,” then, well, sure. The people want the wall to be built.

    It’s worth asking how many people that encompasses. Or, really, we can invert the question: Of Trump’s fervent base of support, what percentage thinks that this particular fight is one that is critical to pick? If Trump didn’t insist on this shutdown, how many of his “the people” would bail on him? That, after all, is the sense in which the shutdown is very much about 2020: Trump’s urgent insistence that his base get what it wants is his ongoing attempt to clutch those voters as close to his heart as he can.

    Overall, most Americans approve of Trump’s efforts to protect the border, with more than three-quarters of white evangelical Christians and nearly all Republicans and people identified by Marist as Trump supporters agreeing.

    This is an important point in part because it explains the rhetoric that Trump and his allies are using. For the most part, they’re framing the funding fight as being about border security, though the sticking point is obviously the specific subset of security funding that’s focused on a wall. As we’ve noted repeatedly, a wall itself would have only a minor effect on the issues that Trump insists are the problems that need to be addressed. Drug inflow, for example, mostly occurs at existing border crossing points. Most immigrants who come to the country illegally at this point come on valid visas but don’t leave when mandated — something that can happen just as easily at an airport as at the border with Mexico.

    But back to that wall. Marist also asked a revealing question: How urgent should construction of the wall be? Half of Americans said it shouldn’t be a priority at all. But only two-thirds of even Trump’s most fervent supporters said it was something that needed to be done right now.



    I think it's safe to say that this wall isn't going to happen as Trump has envisioned it.
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

    Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to WizardofOz For Your Post:

    drbrumley (January 11th, 2019)

  19. #447
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    24,219
    Thanks
    3,483
    Thanked 8,707 Times in 6,462 Posts

    Mentioned
    38 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147769
    It'll be better!

  20. The Following User Says Thank You to ok doser For Your Post:

    JudgeRightly (January 11th, 2019)

  21. #448
    Over 5000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,318
    Thanks
    2,105
    Thanked 2,529 Times in 1,418 Posts

    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1360867
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    It'll be better!
    I think we can safely rename Trump's wall plan the 'dream act'
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

    Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

  22. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to WizardofOz For Your Post:

    drbrumley (January 11th, 2019),Rusha (January 11th, 2019)

  23. #449
    Over 750 post club
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Under the Hill and Over the Hedge
    Posts
    891
    Thanks
    325
    Thanked 450 Times in 322 Posts

    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    151675
    Quote Originally Posted by WizardofOz View Post
    The premise of the OP is flawed. It's not just "liberals" who don't want a wall.

    Immigration hardliners know the wall is a bad idea


    The tell here is that when congressional Democrats started getting close to a deal that would swap help for DREAMers for wall money, immigration hawks swooped in — not with quibbles about the details but with a huge set of unrelated demands.

    As Dara Lind wrote in January, the White House’s proposed framework for a deal ultimately included “an overhaul of asylum laws, stepped-up interior enforcement, and a broad crackdown on legal immigration on the scale of the Trump-endorsed RAISE Act.” The RAISE Act is a plan to cut legal immigration levels in half, which illustrates how little immigration restrictionists are actually focused on the nominal border security debate that has shut the government down.

    But that’s the point. If your goal is to reduce the number of foreign-born people living in the United States by any means necessary, then building an extra 700 miles of border wall is not particularly useful. So extending a path to citizenship for DREAMers or anyone else in exchange for a not-very-useful wall is an unattractive deal.

    By the same token, if the wall were extremely useful, then Trump could seek to offset its cost by reducing spending on some other aspect of immigration enforcement. But because the wall is a bad idea, that would be a bad deal and he wouldn’t offer it. He also obviously can’t offer to offset the cost with higher taxes on the rich because that would blow up the Republican Party coalition — a coalition that’s happy to exploit the border wall issue for partisan gain but that at its core is supposed to be delivering money to rich people.



    MOST TEXANS ALONG THE BORDER DON’T WANT TRUMP’S WALL, AND MANY DOUBT IT WILL BE BUILT

    Many Texans who live along the U.S.-Mexico border support President Donald Trump, but their affection for the New York real estate mogul-turned-politician comes with a caveat:

    They do not want a wall.

    The Star-Telegram recently visited a 325-mile stretch of the Lone Star State’s boundary with Mexico to gauge attitudes toward the proposed wall. The trip included stops in Presidio, Big Bend National Park, Del Rio and Eagle Pass in late April, and visits with a farmer, a rancher, a wildlife biologist, a sheriff and people from many other walks of life.

    The reasons for their opposition to the wall are as varied as the communities that sit along the Rio Grande. Some are concerned about losing private land to make room for the structure. Others warned that building a continuous wall could cause massive flooding. Still others spoke against the potential impact on wildlife, and the state’s natural landscape.

    And many border residents said they had serious doubts that such a wall would succeed in reducing illegal immigration or drug smuggling — the primary justifications often cited by supporters.

    “Trump has done some good things with immigration, but he’s 100 percent wrong about the wall,” said Dob Cunningham, 83, a lifelong rancher and retired Border Patrol agent who owns hundreds of acres abutting the border in Quemado, north of Eagle Pass. “I haven’t found anybody — and I know people from Nogales [Arizona] to Brownsville — who wants that wall.”

    Statewide, 61 percent of Texans oppose building a wall, while 35 percent support it and 4 percent don’t know or declined to answer, according to a poll conducted in April by Texas Lyceum, a nonprofit leadership organization.

    Residents of the Lone Star State who live, work and play along the international boundary with Mexico say they are happy that the Trump administration’s plans to quickly build the wall have encountered complications in Washington.



    “The people of the country” don’t agree with Trump on the shutdown or on the wall.


    We looked at this last month, considering polling that showed that most Americans don’t support building a wall and that most think a shutdown should be avoided.

    Trump’s discussion of what the American people want, though, is often a shorthand meant to refer to a specific subset of the American population: his base of supporters. There certainly are people who want the wall to be built, most of whom are Republicans and most of whom approve of the job Trump is doing. If that’s your definition of “the people,” then, well, sure. The people want the wall to be built.

    It’s worth asking how many people that encompasses. Or, really, we can invert the question: Of Trump’s fervent base of support, what percentage thinks that this particular fight is one that is critical to pick? If Trump didn’t insist on this shutdown, how many of his “the people” would bail on him? That, after all, is the sense in which the shutdown is very much about 2020: Trump’s urgent insistence that his base get what it wants is his ongoing attempt to clutch those voters as close to his heart as he can.

    Overall, most Americans approve of Trump’s efforts to protect the border, with more than three-quarters of white evangelical Christians and nearly all Republicans and people identified by Marist as Trump supporters agreeing.

    This is an important point in part because it explains the rhetoric that Trump and his allies are using. For the most part, they’re framing the funding fight as being about border security, though the sticking point is obviously the specific subset of security funding that’s focused on a wall. As we’ve noted repeatedly, a wall itself would have only a minor effect on the issues that Trump insists are the problems that need to be addressed. Drug inflow, for example, mostly occurs at existing border crossing points. Most immigrants who come to the country illegally at this point come on valid visas but don’t leave when mandated — something that can happen just as easily at an airport as at the border with Mexico.

    But back to that wall. Marist also asked a revealing question: How urgent should construction of the wall be? Half of Americans said it shouldn’t be a priority at all. But only two-thirds of even Trump’s most fervent supporters said it was something that needed to be done right now.



    I think it's safe to say that this wall isn't going to happen as Trump has envisioned it.
    I saw a commentary the other day that points out that Trump may not actually want the wall as he is really doing none of the deal-making negotiations to actually get it. The writer believes what he is really after is just to be seen fighting for the wall to appease his base.
    "Repubs must not allow [The President] to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress," Donald Trump

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Kit the Coyote For Your Post:

    exminister (January 11th, 2019)

  25. #450
    Over 5000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,318
    Thanks
    2,105
    Thanked 2,529 Times in 1,418 Posts

    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1360867
    Quote Originally Posted by Kit the Coyote View Post
    I saw a commentary the other day that points out that Trump may not actually want the wall as he is really doing none of the deal-making negotiations to actually get it. The writer believes what he is really after is just to be seen fighting for the wall to appease his base.
    Well, it's working on plenty of TOLers so I'm sure his national base is eating it up
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

    Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

  26. The Following User Says Thank You to WizardofOz For Your Post:

    drbrumley (January 11th, 2019)

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us