Political Roundtable Part XII

[popper]

In 1996 Pub L, 104-208 became law, also known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA ). The IIRIRA requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency. Despite the IIRIRA, hundreds of urban, suburban, and rural communities have ignored the law and adopted sanctuary policies.

Edit- you mention the justice systems role as it regards my post. Anyone paying attention knows that the previous president violated the "the take care clause" in numerous instances and supported his AG who was held in contempt of congress in a bipartisan vote. Justice was subordinated to politics under Obama.

Well, if justice was "subordinated to politics" under Obama, then it's about to get a lot worse. Because our new president wants to waste taxpayers money having the justice dept. investigate the "3-4 million illegal votes" that he claims were cast in the last election. This massive "voter fraud" is a problem that exists only in Trump's insecure mind. His narcissistic ego won't let him accept the reality that he lost the popular vote to Hillary. So he's looking for some "alternative facts."

Agree. The two areas ripe for federal assistance however is people voting in two states and opening up federal databases to check for deceased persons. I personally know a person that votes in two swing states every election. I can't seem to rat out this good friend even though she cancels out my vote. Character flaw on my part I guess but I grew up conditioned not to be a rat.

Edit - years ago I even served a short stint in jail because I refused to rat out a friend

[Ruzious]

In 1996 Pub L, 104-208 became law, also known as the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA ). The IIRIRA requires local governments to cooperate with Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Agency. Despite the IIRIRA, hundreds of urban, suburban, and rural communities have ignored the law and adopted sanctuary policies.

Edit- you mention the justice systems role as it regards my post. Anyone paying attention knows that the previous president violated the "the take care clause" in numerous instances and supported his AG who was held in contempt of congress in a bipartisan vote. Justice was subordinated to politics under Obama.

Well, if justice was "subordinated to politics" under Obama, then it's about to get a lot worse. Because our new president wants to waste taxpayers money having the justice dept. investigate the "3-4 million illegal votes" that he claims were cast in the last election. This massive "voter fraud" is a problem that exists only in Trump's insecure mind. His narcissistic ego won't let him accept the reality that he lost the popular vote to Hillary. So he's looking for some "alternative facts."

These questions beg to be answered:

1. Why would Trump request an investigation on an election that he won?
2. How did he come up with the 3-4 million range for illegal votes?
3. Will he have the FBI question Popper about his lady friend that votes in 2 states?
4. Does Wikileaks see the irony in their criticisms of Trump's criticisms of Chelsea Manning?

[Rafael122]

I have a feeling that Pence will end up doing a lot more work than any VP before him.

Trump wanted to make Kasich the most powerful VP ever, mostly b/c Trump didn't actually want to do any of the work. I would have voted for Kasich, some things I didn't agree with but he appeared the most sane out of all the GOP nominees.

[NatP4]

March for life gives me hope for humanity

[AFM]

Well done...

Read on Twitter

[Ruzious]

Seems like the children watching would see that females can step up, can stand up for themselves, and don't have to sit down when they're bullied.

[AFM]

Seems like the children watching would see that females can step up, can stand up for themselves, and don't have to sit down when they're bullied.

Exactly. Why send that message?

[NatP4]

Seems like the children watching would see that females can step up, can stand up for themselves, and don't have to sit down when they're bullied.

Exactly. Why send that message?

For the dumb kids

[nate33]

Tell me, has Trump told any lies, flat out lies, in the first week of his Presidency? E.g. about attendance at the Inauguration for starters? Just a straight answer, please: did Donald Trump lie, or did he not lie about this subject?

Trump lied when he sent Spicer out to say that the Inauguration crowd was the biggest ever. That clearly wasn't the case, at least with respect to the number of people physically at the Mall. Trump and Spicer later massaged the statement to say that it was the biggest crowd ever to "watch" an Inauguration. That is probably true once you factor TV ratings and internet streams.

As usual, I think these white lies are intentional. They're meant to distract the media while he does things like scale back EPA restrictions and greatly broaden the definition of criminal illegal aliens.

Trump isn't lying about actual policy. He isn't telling the public he is going to do X and then he does Y.

[nate33]

As I think about it, it gets worse.

1. The American taxpayer is going to initially foot the bill for this wall out of Congressional appropriations -- your tax dollars.
2. Then, we're gonna pay out of pocket as the value of the tarriff is passed along to consumers.

We taxpayers are gonna pay for the wall TWICE.

So much #winning. Make it stop.

Spicer brought up the tariff as merely one method of paying for the Wall. It's a negotiating tactic because a tariff will scare Mexico the most.

Don't worry. That's not the way they're going do it. They'll withdraw aid and tax remittances first.

BTW, I agree that tariffs wouldn't really constitute Mexico paying for it. Tariffs are effectively a tax on the consumer. If they're offset by income tax cuts, that can make sense from a competitive standpoint, but they're not a revenue generating tool.

[Induveca]

As I think about it, it gets worse.

1. The American taxpayer is going to initially foot the bill for this wall out of Congressional appropriations -- your tax dollars.
2. Then, we're gonna pay out of pocket as the value of the tarriff is passed along to consumers.

We taxpayers are gonna pay for the wall TWICE.

So much #winning. Make it stop.

Spicer brought up the tariff as merely one method of paying for the Wall. It's a negotiating tactic because a tariff will scare Mexico the most.

Don't worry. That's not the way they're going do it. They'll withdraw aid and tax remittances first.

This is a perfect example of what I've been wanting to see for a long time in DC. Trump is treating this as a straight up business deal, bottom line....make money. This is round one of negotiations, aggressive/good negotiators throw out wild demands initially.

You attempt to set your opponents inevitable "middle ground" counter for what you actually want when negotiating with a business in a weaker position.

It may seem crazy in politics but it's just a business negotiation. They'll be shaking hands over a deal and Mexico will be saying "We made him back off! It could have been much worse."

Good business is allowing your competitor or partner to also claim victory. Those who have been through business and contract mediation know this well.

This is not a bad thing. Mexico is not abandoning 300 billion in exports, they'll take 270 instead.....eventually.

[pineappleheadindc]

As I think about it, it gets worse.

1. The American taxpayer is going to initially foot the bill for this wall out of Congressional appropriations -- your tax dollars.
2. Then, we're gonna pay out of pocket as the value of the tarriff is passed along to consumers.

We taxpayers are gonna pay for the wall TWICE.

So much #winning. Make it stop.

Spicer brought up the tariff as merely one method of paying for the Wall. It's a negotiating tactic because a tariff will scare Mexico the most.

Don't worry. That's not the way they're going do it. They'll withdraw aid and tax remittances first.

BTW, I agree that tariffs wouldn't really constitute Mexico paying for it. Tariffs are effectively a tax on the consumer. If they're offset by income tax cuts, that can make sense from a competitive standpoint, but they're not a revenue generating tool.

Fair enough post, Nate.

I imagine there is a way to make Mexico "pay" for it -- kinda. Like reduction in foreign aid over "x" years to them, etc. Yes? No?

[nate33]

As I think about it, it gets worse.

1. The American taxpayer is going to initially foot the bill for this wall out of Congressional appropriations -- your tax dollars.
2. Then, we're gonna pay out of pocket as the value of the tarriff is passed along to consumers.

We taxpayers are gonna pay for the wall TWICE.

So much #winning. Make it stop.

Spicer brought up the tariff as merely one method of paying for the Wall. It's a negotiating tactic because a tariff will scare Mexico the most.

Don't worry. That's not the way they're going do it. They'll withdraw aid and tax remittances first.

BTW, I agree that tariffs wouldn't really constitute Mexico paying for it. Tariffs are effectively a tax on the consumer. If they're offset by income tax cuts, that can make sense from a competitive standpoint, but they're not a revenue generating tool.

Fair enough post, Nate.

I imagine there is a way to make Mexico "pay" for it -- kinda. Like reduction in foreign aid over "x" years to them, etc. Yes? No?

The low hanging fruit is remittance payments. Mexico receives $25B a year in remittance payments from the U.S. If we slap a modest tax on them, we can recoup the cost of the Wall in less than a decade. The tax would have to be small enough not to encourage circumvention - perhaps 10%. That's $2.5B a year. The Wall costs $14B so it would be paid for in 6 years. Heck, make it just 5% and it would still be paid for in 12 years with much less concern about tax avoidance.

We don't give a lot of foreign aid to Mexico - just $50M. But we could certainly stop that as well.

We could increase visa fees and other various border crossing taxes. I don't know exactly what kind of revenue could be generated there (and Mexico could retaliate in kind).

[TGW]

It doesn't matter if Mexico pays or doesn't pay, etc. The wall is not going to stop illegals from getting into the country. There are still going to be miles of border that cannot be fenced. We are going to waste tax money paying for an ineffective solution to a problem. This is just a political ploy, plain and simple.

God, I can't wait for 2020 so that we can get this idiot out of office.

[AFM]

It doesn't matter if Mexico pays or doesn't pay, etc. The wall is not going to stop illegals from getting into the country. There are still going to be miles of border that cannot be fenced. We are going to waste tax money paying for an ineffective solution to a problem. This is just a political ploy, plain and simple.

God, I can't wait for 2020 so that we can get this idiot out of office.

Aren't most illegals here via visas that expired and they never left anyway?

[DCZards]

SIGN OF THE TIMES

[AFM]

Not a bad point DCZ.

Feel like we talked about this before, but that's mostly on the Ds for pushing the worst candidate ever...

Bernie "Socialist" Sanders would have beaten Trump

Dont listen to me man, I'm an idiot...

[long suffrin' boulez fan]

Spicer brought up the tariff as merely one method of paying for the Wall. It's a negotiating tactic because a tariff will scare Mexico the most.

Don't worry. That's not the way they're going do it. They'll withdraw aid and tax remittances first.

BTW, I agree that tariffs wouldn't really constitute Mexico paying for it. Tariffs are effectively a tax on the consumer. If they're offset by income tax cuts, that can make sense from a competitive standpoint, but they're not a revenue generating tool.

Fair enough post, Nate.

I imagine there is a way to make Mexico "pay" for it -- kinda. Like reduction in foreign aid over "x" years to them, etc. Yes? No?

The low hanging fruit is remittance payments. Mexico receives $25B a year in remittance payments from the U.S. If we slap a modest tax on them, we can recoup the cost of the Wall in less than a decade. The tax would have to be small enough not to encourage circumvention - perhaps 10%. That's $2.5B a year. The Wall costs $14B so it would be paid for in 6 years. Heck, make it just 5% and it would still be paid for in 12 years with much less concern about tax avoidance.

We don't give a lot of foreign aid to Mexico - just $50M. But we could certainly stop that as well.

We could increase visa fees and other various border crossing taxes. I don't know exactly what kind of revenue could be generated there (and Mexico could retaliate in kind).

Just mean and ugly. "Mexico" would not pay the taxes on remittances. The poorest of the poor Mexicans would.

[verbal8]

No usually a LeBron fan, but this quote is pretty entertaining.

Read on Twitter

[nate33]

Fair enough post, Nate.

I imagine there is a way to make Mexico "pay" for it -- kinda. Like reduction in foreign aid over "x" years to them, etc. Yes? No?

The low hanging fruit is remittance payments. Mexico receives $25B a year in remittance payments from the U.S. If we slap a modest tax on them, we can recoup the cost of the Wall in less than a decade. The tax would have to be small enough not to encourage circumvention - perhaps 10%. That's $2.5B a year. The Wall costs $14B so it would be paid for in 6 years. Heck, make it just 5% and it would still be paid for in 12 years with much less concern about tax avoidance.

We don't give a lot of foreign aid to Mexico - just $50M. But we could certainly stop that as well.

We could increase visa fees and other various border crossing taxes. I don't know exactly what kind of revenue could be generated there (and Mexico could retaliate in kind).

Just mean and ugly. "Mexico" would not pay the taxes on remittances. The poorest of the poor Mexicans would.

Then Mexico should look out for their poor citizens and negotiate with Trump to pay the fee for the Wall from government coffers.