5 ms·

> Screwing the country over further economically sounds like the worst way to solve this problem. First, I am just a random uneducated and ignorant American, s

> Screwing the country over further economically sounds like the worst way to solve this problem. First, I am just a random uneducated and ignorant American, so take my two cents for what it is...only two cents. From my vantage point, cutting off the drug cartels access to the US market could potentially do wonders to shifting the balance of power and helping Mexico in the long run. Also, as unpopular as it is, the US governments first mandate is to protect it's citizens. Sometimes that means making tough choices that doesn't help everybody, but responsibility takes maturity and a willingness to consider unpopular options. >His actions are clearly going to increase the flow of illegal immigrants into the US, and now that these people can be tossed into federal prison... I think missed the key word in his contract "CRIMINAL". He is not talking about people who broke the law by illegally imigrating. He is talking about FELONS who ALSO came here illegally. They certainly don't belong roaming our streets unchecked. Contributing illegal immigrants is a different discussion, but convicted felons, rapists, murderers, etc... who come here illegally belong in Mexican prisons and should be mexico's problem...if they can't do it, than yes, well put them in prison...to KEEP YOUR AND YOUR FAMILY SAFE.

waterphone 10y ago
You're not going to cut off the drug cartels. Sorry, it just isn't going to happen, and I say that as someone who lives in an area they use as a common smuggling route and have encountered groups of smugglers multiple times in the past few years. They walk through the desert and climb mountains with 60+ lb bales of marijuana on their back for days to a week at a time, going into terrain Border Patrol agents won't even try following them through most of the time. Even if a wall somehow gets built across the mountains and canyons all along the border, which it won't, they'll tunnel under, fire bales over, etc. They are very incentivized to get through, and they are very skilled at doing so and will find a way. As for the use of the word "criminal", I think you may be the one misunderstanding in this instance. That word is used to refer to those Trump plans to deport, but on the second page you'll note: > establishes a two-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation No mention of criminal there—if you get caught more than once you would go to federal prison in the U.S. for a mandatory minimum of 2 years.
- davemel37 10y ago
  > I think you may be the one misunderstanding in this instance. He states very clearly he is only deporting the 2 million Criminals...not the 11 million Illegals. I really think you are the one who misunderstood his intent. Edit: I relooked at the contract and I see where we are both coming from. There are two sections that address illegal immigration. The first, which I was focusing on addresses WHO WE WILL DEPORT. The second section, discussing the wall, mentions jail penalties for people who are deported and re-enter. In short, if we only deport the people trump says hell deport in this agreement, than I am right. If he deports all illegal immigrants, than you are right. Personally, I think the belief he will deport more than the dangerous criminals is not really reality based, despite his campaign rhetoric...(but, I've been wrong before.) Here is the quote: " FOURTH, begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back."
  - waterphone 10y ago
    You're still misunderstanding. All illegal immigrants who cross the border and get caught in the process get deported. That's how it is now. Trump's jail time proposal isn't specifically for those with criminal records who he wants to deport, though they would be included as well, it would also apply to anyone who enters, gets caught, gets sent back, reenters a second time, and gets caught again.
    - davemel37 10y ago
      I didn't consider that scenario, but I still feel it's a totally reasonable proposal. It's one thing if you are already here, a functioning and contributing member of society where relatives are citizens, etc... IN that case, I can appreciate policies that give a path to citizenship... But, at some point we need to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Not just to keep out the bad actors, but also to protect the integrity of our legal immigration process. Someone, somewhere has to be too late... So, if you come across the border and we catch you and deport you, and you try to come across again, Jail sounds like a reasonable deterrent to encourage you to try the legal routes. One thing that people don't seem to get is that some things are zero sum, and empathy with the little guy isn't always the right side. As individuals, we have the freedom to decide who we want to be, and how we feel about these sad stories...but as the American Government, they have a different value system and priorities that they need to filter these policies through. Immigration is a tough issue. There is a sincerely held and reasonable position on both sides. Do I think we should throw people whose only crime is illegal immigration into Jail? No. I am not even sure that Jail works and shouldn't just be completely abolished...But, we have to draw the line somewhere... Trump is drawing that line at convicted criminals and people who aren't yet across the border. I think thats a fair stance that isn't unreasonable. edit:spelling
dlp211 10y ago
> From my vantage point, cutting off the drug cartels access to the US market could potentially do wonders to shifting the balance of power and helping Mexico in the long run. If you think a wall is going to do this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. A physical wall is going to slow the cartels down for a week while they round up a bunch of Mexican citizens at gunpoint and force them to dig tunnels into the US, build submersibles to get here via waterways, and just go buy a dozen ladders. There are literally people that can climb a 10 foot wall without a ladder.
- serge2k 10y ago
  Hell, they could just toss the stuff over. Or drones. basically all the shit they do now except just carrying it accross.
- davemel37 10y ago
  > If you think a wall is going to do this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. Maybe you are right, but whats the alternative. The status quo of doing nothing? I will almost always side with action vs. inaction. (not to say I'm right, just to say I would rather try and fail than not try because some random naysayers have more faith in the cartels than our ability to secure a border.) Edit: I copied and pasted the wrong quote, so I fixed it.
  - finiter 10y ago
    >but whats the alternative. The status quo of doing nothing? I will almost always side with action vs. inaction. What if someone said the reported problems are overblown and immigrants actually help our economy?
    - davemel37 10y ago
      That's why we have a legal immigration route.
seanmcdirmid 10y ago
But US gun manufacturers rely on the north south drug trade for many of their profits (drugs run north. guns run south). On second thought, you might be on to something here.

waterphone 10y ago

You're not going to cut off the drug cartels. Sorry, it just isn't going to happen, and I say that as someone who lives in an area they use as a common smuggling route and have encountered groups of smugglers multiple times in the past few years. They walk through the desert and climb mountains with 60+ lb bales of marijuana on their back for days to a week at a time, going into terrain Border Patrol agents won't even try following them through most of the time. Even if a wall somehow gets built across the mountains and canyons all along the border, which it won't, they'll tunnel under, fire bales over, etc. They are very incentivized to get through, and they are very skilled at doing so and will find a way. As for the use of the word "criminal", I think you may be the one misunderstanding in this instance. That word is used to refer to those Trump plans to deport, but on the second page you'll note: > establishes a two-year mandatory minimum federal prison sentence for illegally re-entering the U.S. after a previous deportation No mention of criminal there—if you get caught more than once you would go to federal prison in the U.S. for a mandatory minimum of 2 years.

davemel37 10y ago
> I think you may be the one misunderstanding in this instance. He states very clearly he is only deporting the 2 million Criminals...not the 11 million Illegals. I really think you are the one who misunderstood his intent. Edit: I relooked at the contract and I see where we are both coming from. There are two sections that address illegal immigration. The first, which I was focusing on addresses WHO WE WILL DEPORT. The second section, discussing the wall, mentions jail penalties for people who are deported and re-enter. In short, if we only deport the people trump says hell deport in this agreement, than I am right. If he deports all illegal immigrants, than you are right. Personally, I think the belief he will deport more than the dangerous criminals is not really reality based, despite his campaign rhetoric...(but, I've been wrong before.) Here is the quote: " FOURTH, begin removing the more than two million criminal illegal immigrants from the country and cancel visas to foreign countries that won’t take them back."
- waterphone 10y ago
  You're still misunderstanding. All illegal immigrants who cross the border and get caught in the process get deported. That's how it is now. Trump's jail time proposal isn't specifically for those with criminal records who he wants to deport, though they would be included as well, it would also apply to anyone who enters, gets caught, gets sent back, reenters a second time, and gets caught again.
  - davemel37 10y ago
    I didn't consider that scenario, but I still feel it's a totally reasonable proposal. It's one thing if you are already here, a functioning and contributing member of society where relatives are citizens, etc... IN that case, I can appreciate policies that give a path to citizenship... But, at some point we need to stop the flow of illegal immigrants. Not just to keep out the bad actors, but also to protect the integrity of our legal immigration process. Someone, somewhere has to be too late... So, if you come across the border and we catch you and deport you, and you try to come across again, Jail sounds like a reasonable deterrent to encourage you to try the legal routes. One thing that people don't seem to get is that some things are zero sum, and empathy with the little guy isn't always the right side. As individuals, we have the freedom to decide who we want to be, and how we feel about these sad stories...but as the American Government, they have a different value system and priorities that they need to filter these policies through. Immigration is a tough issue. There is a sincerely held and reasonable position on both sides. Do I think we should throw people whose only crime is illegal immigration into Jail? No. I am not even sure that Jail works and shouldn't just be completely abolished...But, we have to draw the line somewhere... Trump is drawing that line at convicted criminals and people who aren't yet across the border. I think thats a fair stance that isn't unreasonable. edit:spelling

dlp211 10y ago

> From my vantage point, cutting off the drug cartels access to the US market could potentially do wonders to shifting the balance of power and helping Mexico in the long run. If you think a wall is going to do this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. A physical wall is going to slow the cartels down for a week while they round up a bunch of Mexican citizens at gunpoint and force them to dig tunnels into the US, build submersibles to get here via waterways, and just go buy a dozen ladders. There are literally people that can climb a 10 foot wall without a ladder.

serge2k 10y ago
Hell, they could just toss the stuff over. Or drones. basically all the shit they do now except just carrying it accross.
davemel37 10y ago
> If you think a wall is going to do this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you. Maybe you are right, but whats the alternative. The status quo of doing nothing? I will almost always side with action vs. inaction. (not to say I'm right, just to say I would rather try and fail than not try because some random naysayers have more faith in the cartels than our ability to secure a border.) Edit: I copied and pasted the wrong quote, so I fixed it.
- finiter 10y ago
  >but whats the alternative. The status quo of doing nothing? I will almost always side with action vs. inaction. What if someone said the reported problems are overblown and immigrants actually help our economy?
  - davemel37 10y ago
    That's why we have a legal immigration route.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago

But US gun manufacturers rely on the north south drug trade for many of their profits (drugs run north. guns run south). On second thought, you might be on to something here.