Political Roundtable Part XXI

[gtn130]

Read on Twitter

what the f*** is this s***?

[nate33]

Nate, you're dead wrong. You didn't prove any points - all you did was show that you are blinded by hate.

You've lost all credibility with me and I simply won't engage with you on this topic. You have taken the side of terrorism. Let the grownups discuss this policy - you go sit at the kid's table.

Right now the discussion is going to focus around undoing the horrific damage you and your evil friends have inflicted on these innocent children. That's going to be the main priority now.

You are a joke. This entire conversation, I'm the one engaging in policy specifics. All you do is shout "Hitler!".

[nate33]

I have answered you and in the thread an in general.

I am not for birthright or familial preference based immigration. I believe it should be age and skills based first and foremost. But I certainly don't agree with the NO immigration policy posited by this administration. We have a severe demographic and growth issue (due to the financial hole we have dug for ourselves).

I am for a DACA compromise with a hard deportation policy that goes with the compromise. I am certainly NOT for tying a wall into the compromise legislation.

But - in no uncertain terms - should children ever be held hostage on this issue.

And the reason this legislation isn't moving forward is that there isn't a super majority of Republicans in congress that supports this Administrations proposal (mostly because it isn't very good and isn't supported by a majority of Americans).

But - in no uncertain terms - should children ever be held hostage on this issue due to the incompetence of this administration to lobby the Rs.

I can't seem to get you to answer one simple question. I'll try again, keeping it as narrow as possible.

I'm referring to situations when a family sneaks across the border, gets caught, and demands asylum. We detain them while awaiting their asylum hearing, which can take several weeks. However, after 20 days, our law says we can't detain the kids anymore. So we send them to a relative if one is available, or we put them in foster care while awaiting the asylum hearing. What other alternative do you propose? That's it. That's my single question. What alternative solution to separating the family do you propose? Please answer that before bashing Trump's policy.

Assuming that they came across by themselves. This if fine.

If they came across with their parent - they should stay with that parent through the entire detainment process. They should never be separated.

But how do we avoid separating them if the kids have to be let go in 20 days? Are you suggesting that we let the parents go too? Just let them into the country on their own recognizance, hoping that they come back for their asylum hearing? You do realize that that is de facto open borders. You do realize that this loophole has been exploited more and more every year.

Trump has been asking for more funding for more immigration judges to expedite the asylum process but Democrats have blocked it. Trump has asked for more funding for a wall to prevent people from sneaking across the border, but Democrats have stopped it. Trump has just issued an executive order to extend that 20 day limit on detaining kids so that they can remain with their parents, and the Democrats will attempt to stop it. Don't you see? The Democrats are stopping ANYTHING that would result in asylum seekers actually getting a hearing before being admitted into the country. Why do you think this is the case?

[I_Like_Dirt]

The Democrats are stopping ANYTHING that would result in asylum seekers actually getting a hearing before being admitted into the country. Why do you think this is the case?

Maybe because he isn't as good at making deals as he thinks he is? He's basically hurt government revenues and is increasing government expenses at the same time. Adding funding for a wall makes things far, far worse. Attacking Mexico through NAFTA isn't necessarily the best way to get them to work with you on immigration, either. Instead of working on a give and take, he's essentially created a scenario where he's saying "I'll get these children out of their cages and might even consider returning them to their parents if you give me everything I want." That's some grade A deal making right there. Kinda reminds me of something. I wonder what it could possibly be?

[nate33]

The Democrats are stopping ANYTHING that would result in asylum seekers actually getting a hearing before being admitted into the country. Why do you think this is the case?

Maybe because he isn't as good at making deals as he thinks he is? He's basically hurt government revenues and is increasing government expenses at the same time. Adding funding for a wall makes things far, far worse. Attacking Mexico through NAFTA isn't necessarily the best way to get them to work with you on immigration, either. Instead of working on a give and take, he's essentially created a scenario where he's saying "I'll get these children out of their cages and might even consider returning them to their parents if you give me everything I want." That's some grade A deal making right there. Kinda reminds me of something. I wonder what it could possibly be?

Bullspit. The Democrats have had this stance for years. They don't want to enforce immigration, period. They want to admit as many poor dependents as possible, amnesty them, and build their electoral base. California is their model for the country.

The problem is, California has gone from one of the most economically vibrant states in the 80's, to the state that leads the nation in poverty rate. I don't want to see that transition happen to the rest of the country.

[dckingsfan]

I can't seem to get you to answer one simple question. I'll try again, keeping it as narrow as possible.

I'm referring to situations when a family sneaks across the border, gets caught, and demands asylum. We detain them while awaiting their asylum hearing, which can take several weeks. However, after 20 days, our law says we can't detain the kids anymore. So we send them to a relative if one is available, or we put them in foster care while awaiting the asylum hearing. What other alternative do you propose? That's it. That's my single question. What alternative solution to separating the family do you propose? Please answer that before bashing Trump's policy.

Assuming that they came across by themselves. This if fine.

If they came across with their parent - they should stay with that parent through the entire detainment process. They should never be separated.

But how do we avoid separating them if the kids have to be let go in 20 days? Are you suggesting that we let the parents go too? Just let them into the country on their own recognizance, hoping that they come back for their asylum hearing? You do realize that that is de facto open borders. You do realize that this loophole has been exploited more and more every year.

Trump has been asking for more funding for more immigration judges to expedite the asylum process but Democrats have blocked it. Trump has asked for more funding for a wall to prevent people from sneaking across the border, but Democrats have stopped it. Trump has just issued an executive order to extend that 20 day limit on detaining kids so that they can remain with their parents, and the Democrats will attempt to stop it. Don't you see? The Democrats are stopping ANYTHING that would result in asylum seekers actually getting a hearing before being admitted into the country. Why do you think this is the case?

I think your questions are:
1) Would I let parents go if it means they aren't separated from the children?
Yes, if that is what it takes. But, that doesn't mean that you can't hold the parents and allow the children to be with them.

2) Do I realize that this loophole has been used.
Yes, since the Carter era. This isn't new. And don't forget - the old generations of Republicans were complicit.

3) Do I believe that the Ds are trying to stop anything that doesn't allow ALL asylum seekers.
Yes, that is there stance that we should accept some asylum seekers. Some in the Ds are nut jobs and want to accept ALL asylum seekers. Yes, I get that. But the current administration wants to accept NO asylum seekers and wants NO immigration. That is equally out there. And there-in lies the problem. And that is where Trump was incredibly misguided in his political approach - and it boomeranged.

4) Do I realize that Trump wants to build a wall.
Yes, and it is silly/ridiculous. And he doesn't have support for it in his own party. There will be not compromise if he holds this position.

[Zonkerbl]

Nate, you're dead wrong. You didn't prove any points - all you did was show that you are blinded by hate.

You've lost all credibility with me and I simply won't engage with you on this topic. You have taken the side of terrorism. Let the grownups discuss this policy - you go sit at the kid's table.

Right now the discussion is going to focus around undoing the horrific damage you and your evil friends have inflicted on these innocent children. That's going to be the main priority now.

You are a joke. This entire conversation, I'm the one engaging in policy specifics. All you do is shout "Hitler!".

I'm calling it like I see it. I have family members who died in the Holocaust - I'm not going to apologize for calling this bs out.

[dckingsfan]

The Democrats are stopping ANYTHING that would result in asylum seekers actually getting a hearing before being admitted into the country. Why do you think this is the case?

Maybe because he isn't as good at making deals as he thinks he is? He's basically hurt government revenues and is increasing government expenses at the same time. Adding funding for a wall makes things far, far worse. Attacking Mexico through NAFTA isn't necessarily the best way to get them to work with you on immigration, either. Instead of working on a give and take, he's essentially created a scenario where he's saying "I'll get these children out of their cages and might even consider returning them to their parents if you give me everything I want." That's some grade A deal making right there. Kinda reminds me of something. I wonder what it could possibly be?

Bullspit. The Democrats have had this stance for years. They don't want to enforce immigration, period. They want to admit as many poor dependents as possible, amnesty them, and build their electoral base. California is their model for the country.

The problem is, California has gone from one of the most economically vibrant states in the 80's, to the state that leads the nation in poverty rate. I don't want to see that transition happen to the rest of the country.

First - California Rs were one of the most significant objectors to limits on immigration. But yes to the Ds wanting to grow their base.

So, you are half-right on the first statement.

As for the second statement. Remember that California would have one of the lowest poverty rates except that the poverty rates take into account things like housing. But to say that California's GDP growth is trailing the rest of the country is wrong.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Bullspit. The Democrats have had this stance for years. They don't want to enforce immigration, period. They want to admit as many poor dependents as possible, amnesty them, and build their electoral base. California is their model for the country.

The problem is, California has gone from one of the most economically vibrant states in the 80's, to the state that leads the nation in poverty rate. I don't want to see that transition happen to the rest of the country.

This isn't an "us versus them" situation no matter how much you want to make it so. It also isn't an all or nothing situation, again, no matter how much you're clearly pushing it to be so.

[gtn130]

The Democrats have had this stance for years. They don't want to enforce immigration, period. They want to admit as many poor dependents as possible, amnesty them, and build their electoral base. California is their model for the country.

The problem is, California has gone from one of the most economically vibrant states in the 80's, to the state that leads the nation in poverty rate. I don't want to see that transition happen to the rest of the country.

Dude this is a garbage conspiracy theory that you've repeated many times now. Literally nobody is angling to bring in illegal immigrants to somehow magically grow their electorate. First of all, illegals can't vote. Second, poor people barely vote at all relative to affluent white people. It's an absurd take and is completely wrong.

Virtually everything you're saying about California is wrong.

Likely voters are disproportionately white.
Whites make up only 43% of California’s adult population but 61% of the state’s likely voters. In contrast, Latinos comprise 34% of the adult population but just 18% of likely voters. Asian Americans make up 15% of the population and 12% of likely voters, while 6% of both the population and likely voters are African American. “Other race” and multiracial adults make up 3% of the population and 3% of likely voters. Four in ten (38%) infrequent voters are white, and 31% are Latino. Six in ten unregistered adults are Latino (59%); fewer are white (20%), Asian American (17%), or African American (3%).

Likely voters tend to be older, more educated and affluent, homeowners, and US-born.
Californians age 55 and older make up 31% of the state’s adult population but constitute 45% of likely voters. Young adults (age 18 to 34) make up 33% of the population but only 22% of likely voters, while adults age 35 to 54 are proportionally represented. Eight in ten likely voters either have some college education (42%) or are college graduates (41%); 17% have no college education. Forty-four percent of likely voters have annual household incomes of $80,000 or more, while 29% earn between $40,000 and $80,000 and 28% earn $40,000 or less. A solid majority of likely voters (64%) are homeowners, while a third (33%) are renters. In contrast, 66% of unregistered adults and 62% of infrequent voters are renters. Eighty-four percent of likely voters were born in the United States (16% are immigrants). Women (53%) and men (47%) make up similar shares of California’s likely voters.

[nate33]

Nate, you're dead wrong. You didn't prove any points - all you did was show that you are blinded by hate.

You've lost all credibility with me and I simply won't engage with you on this topic. You have taken the side of terrorism. Let the grownups discuss this policy - you go sit at the kid's table.

Right now the discussion is going to focus around undoing the horrific damage you and your evil friends have inflicted on these innocent children. That's going to be the main priority now.

You are a joke. This entire conversation, I'm the one engaging in policy specifics. All you do is shout "Hitler!".

I'm calling it like I see it. I have family members who died in the Holocaust - I'm not going to apologize for calling this bs out.

Here we go. "Everything I disagree with is the next Holocaust! "

[nate33]

Maybe because he isn't as good at making deals as he thinks he is? He's basically hurt government revenues and is increasing government expenses at the same time. Adding funding for a wall makes things far, far worse. Attacking Mexico through NAFTA isn't necessarily the best way to get them to work with you on immigration, either. Instead of working on a give and take, he's essentially created a scenario where he's saying "I'll get these children out of their cages and might even consider returning them to their parents if you give me everything I want." That's some grade A deal making right there. Kinda reminds me of something. I wonder what it could possibly be?

Bullspit. The Democrats have had this stance for years. They don't want to enforce immigration, period. They want to admit as many poor dependents as possible, amnesty them, and build their electoral base. California is their model for the country.

The problem is, California has gone from one of the most economically vibrant states in the 80's, to the state that leads the nation in poverty rate. I don't want to see that transition happen to the rest of the country.

First - California Rs were one of the most significant objectors to limits on immigration. But yes to the Ds wanting to grow their base.

So, you are half-right on the first statement.

As for the second statement. Remember that California would have one of the lowest poverty rates except that the poverty rates take into account things like housing. But to say that California's GDP growth is trailing the rest of the country is wrong.

That's why I didn't say anything about California's GDP growth. California has lots of rich people in Silicon Valley to boost their GDP. We'll see how long it lasts as their taxes continue to increase and the best and brightest continue to move to Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Texas and Utah to escape the taxation and high cost of living. And, by the way, that high cost of living is due to the massive immigration.

[gtn130]

And, by the way, that high cost of living is due to the massive immigration.

No it's not

[nate33]

The Democrats have had this stance for years. They don't want to enforce immigration, period. They want to admit as many poor dependents as possible, amnesty them, and build their electoral base. California is their model for the country.

The problem is, California has gone from one of the most economically vibrant states in the 80's, to the state that leads the nation in poverty rate. I don't want to see that transition happen to the rest of the country.

Dude this is a garbage conspiracy theory that you've repeated many times now. Literally nobody is angling to bring in illegal immigrants to somehow magically grow their electorate. First of all, illegals can't vote. Second, poor people barely vote at all relative to affluent white people. It's an absurd take and is completely wrong.

Virtually everything you're saying about California is wrong.

Likely voters are disproportionately white.
Whites make up only 43% of California’s adult population but 61% of the state’s likely voters. In contrast, Latinos comprise 34% of the adult population but just 18% of likely voters. Asian Americans make up 15% of the population and 12% of likely voters, while 6% of both the population and likely voters are African American. “Other race” and multiracial adults make up 3% of the population and 3% of likely voters. Four in ten (38%) infrequent voters are white, and 31% are Latino. Six in ten unregistered adults are Latino (59%); fewer are white (20%), Asian American (17%), or African American (3%).

Likely voters tend to be older, more educated and affluent, homeowners, and US-born.
Californians age 55 and older make up 31% of the state’s adult population but constitute 45% of likely voters. Young adults (age 18 to 34) make up 33% of the population but only 22% of likely voters, while adults age 35 to 54 are proportionally represented. Eight in ten likely voters either have some college education (42%) or are college graduates (41%); 17% have no college education. Forty-four percent of likely voters have annual household incomes of $80,000 or more, while 29% earn between $40,000 and $80,000 and 28% earn $40,000 or less. A solid majority of likely voters (64%) are homeowners, while a third (33%) are renters. In contrast, 66% of unregistered adults and 62% of infrequent voters are renters. Eighty-four percent of likely voters were born in the United States (16% are immigrants). Women (53%) and men (47%) make up similar shares of California’s likely voters.

None of this refutes what I said.

[I_Like_Dirt]

Here's the thing, nate. Zonk has disagreed with me before and never suggested my position was the holocaust. Is he using the term too liberally? Quite possibly, yes, but he isn't using it for everything he disagrees with. And there are a LOT of parallels here. The hatred coming from self-victimization is palpable.

To be honest, one of the interesting differences I see here is that the Nazi party in Germany arose from actually legitimately being victimized in the peace treaties from WWI. Would it have happened anyway? It might have. Second guessing history is an impossible game, but as things stand, there are pretty obvious links. In this particular case, while it hasn't gotten that far and may never get that far, the hatred is actually coming from people who have clearly actually been advantaged relative the vast majority of the population but are fighting for a better deal overall because their privileged position relative others appears to be more valuable to them than even whether or not they're actually better off in the end. It honestly bears some similarities to some of the French Revolutions in that respect. Though I'm hoping we aren't going to see any reigns of terror or open fighting in the streets any time soon, either.

We haven't gotten to some of the worse points out there over the course of history, and hopefully we never see that happen - it's definitely possible, but the path is pretty obvious should the country choose to go further down it. It's why balance is so crucially important and why turning this into an all-or-nothing, or us-versus-them scenario is absolutely dangerous.

[Doug_Blew]

The Democrats are stopping ANYTHING that would result in asylum seekers actually getting a hearing before being admitted into the country. Why do you think this is the case?

Maybe because he isn't as good at making deals as he thinks he is? He's basically hurt government revenues and is increasing government expenses at the same time. Adding funding for a wall makes things far, far worse. Attacking Mexico through NAFTA isn't necessarily the best way to get them to work with you on immigration, either. Instead of working on a give and take, he's essentially created a scenario where he's saying "I'll get these children out of their cages and might even consider returning them to their parents if you give me everything I want." That's some grade A deal making right there. Kinda reminds me of something. I wonder what it could possibly be?

Bullspit. The Democrats have had this stance for years. They don't want to enforce immigration, period. They want to admit as many poor dependents as possible, amnesty them, and build their electoral base. California is their model for the country.

The problem is, California has gone from one of the most economically vibrant states in the 80's, to the state that leads the nation in poverty rate. I don't want to see that transition happen to the rest of the country.

Jerry Brown has been turning around the mess that The Terminator left in California.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/jerry-browns-tough-love-miracle-20130829
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/04/22/jerry-brown-saves-california-447559.html

As far as Democrats blocking the Republicans immigration plans. Do you remember the Grover Norquist pledge? Neither party is willing to work with the other.

[dckingsfan]

Bullspit. The Democrats have had this stance for years. They don't want to enforce immigration, period. They want to admit as many poor dependents as possible, amnesty them, and build their electoral base. California is their model for the country.

The problem is, California has gone from one of the most economically vibrant states in the 80's, to the state that leads the nation in poverty rate. I don't want to see that transition happen to the rest of the country.

First - California Rs were one of the most significant objectors to limits on immigration. But yes to the Ds wanting to grow their base.

So, you are half-right on the first statement.

As for the second statement. Remember that California would have one of the lowest poverty rates except that the poverty rates take into account things like housing. But to say that California's GDP growth is trailing the rest of the country is wrong.

That's why I didn't say anything about California's GDP growth. California has lots of rich people in Silicon Valley to boost their GDP. We'll see how long it lasts as their taxes continue to increase and the best and brightest continue to move to Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Texas and Utah to escape the taxation and high cost of living. And, by the way, that high cost of living is due to the massive immigration.

Just one clarification - the number one reason that people are exiting California is housing prices. And those housing price increases aren't due to "massive" immigration. They are due to local communities stopping housing development.

And the second reason is tax increases - those increases in taxes are due to the unfunded pension liabilities and the prison industrial complex.

And again - it is the Republican base in California that doesn't want to stop the flow of immigrants. Why? Because that base is largely in the central valley - they are farmers.

So, the reason this administration can't get their law(s) passed on immigration - is also because the Republicans.

[dckingsfan]

Maybe because he isn't as good at making deals as he thinks he is? He's basically hurt government revenues and is increasing government expenses at the same time. Adding funding for a wall makes things far, far worse. Attacking Mexico through NAFTA isn't necessarily the best way to get them to work with you on immigration, either. Instead of working on a give and take, he's essentially created a scenario where he's saying "I'll get these children out of their cages and might even consider returning them to their parents if you give me everything I want." That's some grade A deal making right there. Kinda reminds me of something. I wonder what it could possibly be?

Bullspit. The Democrats have had this stance for years. They don't want to enforce immigration, period. They want to admit as many poor dependents as possible, amnesty them, and build their electoral base. California is their model for the country.

The problem is, California has gone from one of the most economically vibrant states in the 80's, to the state that leads the nation in poverty rate. I don't want to see that transition happen to the rest of the country.

Jerry Brown has been turning around the mess that The Terminator left in California.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/jerry-browns-tough-love-miracle-20130829
http://www.newsweek.com/2016/04/22/jerry-brown-saves-california-447559.html

As far as Democrats blocking the Republicans immigration plans. Do you remember the Grover Norquist pledge? Neither party is willing to work with the other.

One clarification - the financial mess didn't have anything to do with Schwarzenegger. That was the prevue of the Democratic legislature. And as a note - they don't like Brown's fiscal prudence.

[gtn130]

the number one reason that people are exiting California is housing prices. And those housing price increases aren't due to "massive" immigration. They are due to local communities stopping housing development.

Yup. Exactly this. And local communities stopping housing development is because rich people don't want the value of their homes to go down.

[dckingsfan]

Here's the thing, nate. Zonk has disagreed with me before and never suggested my position was the holocaust. Is he using the term too liberally? Quite possibly, yes, but he isn't using it for everything he disagrees with. And there are a LOT of parallels here. The hatred coming from self-victimization is palpable.

To be honest, one of the interesting differences I see here is that the Nazi party in Germany arose from actually legitimately being victimized in the peace treaties from WWI. Would it have happened anyway? It might have. Second guessing history is an impossible game, but as things stand, there are pretty obvious links. In this particular case, while it hasn't gotten that far and may never get that far, the hatred is actually coming from people who have clearly actually been advantaged relative the vast majority of the population but are fighting for a better deal overall because their privileged position relative others appears to be more valuable to them than even whether or not they're actually better off in the end. It honestly bears some similarities to some of the French Revolutions in that respect. Though I'm hoping we aren't going to see any reigns of terror or open fighting in the streets any time soon, either.

We haven't gotten to some of the worse points out there over the course of history, and hopefully we never see that happen - it's definitely possible, but the path is pretty obvious should the country choose to go further down it. It's why balance is so crucially important and why turning this into an all-or-nothing, or us-versus-them scenario is absolutely dangerous.

Hey Dirt/Zonk, have you had the chance to read "Why? Explaining the Holocaust" by Peter Hayes. It is the best book I have read on the subject. For those that don't believe their was a Holocaust - its not worth the read.

...