So now we're supposed to care what the Catholic has to say about policy? LOL!
Politico reporting Trump is ending DACA
- Thread starter zeke4ahs
- Start date
So now we're supposed to care what the Catholic has to say about policy? LOL!
"Of," not "in." You've explained why you think Trump should use this as leverage. I'm saying it appears he doesn't want to.
It's pretty freaking funny how he tries to claim, "So what if he's a wacko on Twitter? That means nothing."
Tell that to our allies when he insults them.
He also proclaims one thing and then his entire staff has to spend the next day or two clarifying what he "actually meant" instead of trying to run/fix the country.
He Tweeted the transgender ban....taking everyone, including the military, by complete surprise.
And talk about projection. Trump's entire base worships him based on emotion and not policy.
Please stop with that myth/nonsense.
The guy can't even get his own Party to agree on health care. In fact, all he did was sit back and whine they weren't "doing enough" instead of rolling up his sleeves and trying to get an actual deal done when he said it would be EASY to do.
When he talked to the Mexico Prez, he cried and begged for him to stop talking about the wall because he didn't care about it all and just made him look bad.
His ENTIRE negotiating skill is trying to bully people. Period. And when it doesn't work, he whines like a toddler and makes more threats.
Based on what? The rescinding of the executive action was only announced today.
The deliberations on replacing it have barely even begun. Don't get me wrong: you could prove to be right. I don't know how it will unfold. But neither do you.
Because the wall is nonsensical and a waste of money. You are absolutely correct in that never in his life has he given something without getting something in return. That says a lot about a man right there. Despicable.
As I said earlier, I'm not sold on a physical wall myself.
But, that said and cost considerations aside, if such a thing really would be ineffective at making illegal border crossings more difficult and rare, you'd think that proponents of open borders would shrug at the prospect. But that's not what they've done. Far from it.
DACA doesn't usurp Congress. Congress already decided to give the executive broad discretion in immigration enforcement. It's the law. There are tons of other orders passed by multiple presidents just like DACA, but which apply to different classes of people.
The problem with DACA is that it's a huge political football, and that's why Congress needs to step up and fix it. Executive discretion breaks down when 800K become political pawns, so on this particular issue, a permanent solution is required.
This is silly. The wall won't accomplish much, but it's still powerful optics. People who don't like those optics will obviously oppose it, regardless of any actual effects on immigration.
Based on his words and the details of the order, as I outlined above. Along with reporting about him vacillating on this issue up to the very end.
No, that's silly.
If I supported open borders and I was certain that a wall would be ineffective at preventing illicit border crossings, I wouldn't put up much, if any opposition. Optics, schmoptics.
In fact, I might even support it -- just so I could say that we've already "secured the border"....knowing (or at least believing) that we hadn't.
Well, maybe you should wait until the deliberations get underway. Most of the stories I've seen with lawmakers discussing this have pointed out that border security is a relevant matter that goes hand-in-hand with this.
I'm not in a position to do it now. But both of the pieces I linked in the earlier thread about DACA (one dealing with the House bill, the other dealing with the Tillis bill in the Senate) included numerous references to border security along with this.
It didn't even require reading between the lines.
I'm sorry, I was speaking from the point of view of someone who supports progressive immigration policy, not as some fantastic caricature for whom "open borders" means "illegal crossings, yay!"
We weren't talking about Congress combining the issues. We were talking about Trump using leverage to force Congress to do it. I'm saying the way this was handled indicates he is not willing to do that. It will be up to Congress to decide how to proceed, but I think Trump will be eager to sign a dreamer bill, whether it's paired with security or not.
How is that a caricature?
I offered an opportunity in this thread for somebody to express a fleshed-out justification for opposing better border security. I didn't expect anybody to do it and, well, nobody did.
There's a reason I didn't expect an answer. And that's because very few people who want a porous border, for whatever reason, ever labor to explain why they do. That's a classic example of a position that's probably better left unexplained and undefended.
And flush over 25 billion down the toilet doing so?
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Walls are very effective. People have been building them for thousands of years. Hillary lives behind a wall. Obama's new Georgetown home has a shiny new wall. Many people live in gate (walled) communities. We have a border wall now in many locations.
Congress failed to pass dreamer legislation, so Obama issued an order. Dreamer issues were always seen as legislative matters. The most frequent justification of DACA is prosecutorial discretion. And I explained years ago why P.D. is not intended to change policy. But more importantly, P.D. does not belong to the heads of general government, like mayors, governors or presidents, it belongs to professional prosecutors.
Who cares? What does that have to do with the quality or effectiveness of some of Trump's deeds and actions?
Walls are more effective if they are around people, particularly enforcement agents. All the useful border walls have already been installed.
Yeah, screw the roads and bridges that are crumbling. Let's have a wall so some bigots will feel better even though it's worthless.
Ummmmmmm, you've been whining non-stop the only reason people like Trump is because of "emotions not policy" yet it's magically ok for people to worship him based on emotions?
Deferred action has always been an executive tool, and it's always been applied to large groups. It only became overreach under Obama.
LMAO at Trump the deal maker comment.
That's so ridiculous, it borders on lunacy.
The next time he makes a real effort at a political deal will be the first time. And I'm talking about policy deals, not a real estate deal....which really have very, very little in common.
They were forced into this DACA action by the state AGs deadline for their federal lawsuit. I think Trump would have personally preferred to keep DACA, as-is....but Sessions said he'd refuse to defend it in court, as he doesn't believe it defensible.
So they came up with this half-measure to allow Congress to resolve it.....which I imagine they'll be too incompetent to accomplish.
But please spare me the nonsense that Trump is this great political chess player. He is a reactionary, nothing else.
Last edited:
Walls in the middle of deserts?
The entire "build the wall" mantra is a dog whistle for pea brained individuals. Nobody serious about border security believes in such nonsense. Nor do any of the Reps actually from border districts.
What exactly is complete bullshit?
That lawsuit and the Sept 5 deadline has been discussed since inauguration.
You are too smart to buy that hook, line, sinker. It's a propaganda cop-out.
1. If that's the case why is there a 6 month delay? How did they decide on 6 months? Why not 1 year? Why is there any delay at all? What does the pending lawsuit say about a delay.
2. One AG just recused himself from the lawsuit. You don't think the other 9 would recuse if Trump pressured them to?
3. Sessions can pick and choose what to defend. Why are they defending the travel ban if that's the case? It's politics, not what's legal and what's illegal. You think Jeff Sessions gives a shit about legality?
Trump could fight the lawsuit giving Congress time to legislate, but he chooses not to. That's the bottom line.
The states would almost certainly have won.
They're right that this needs to be legislated. Heck, even Obama made comments to that end....prior to his enacting DACA.
Also, I completely disagree with you about Trump in terms of dealmaking. I've never thought he was the business whiz he seems to think he is -- not before he got into politics, not after. But I do think he knows a thing or two about gaining and using leverage.
Isn't it obvious why he chose 6 months? It should be.
Gee....what'll be happening roughly 6 months from now?
You are not paying attention to what I'm saying.
Obviously Sessions wants nothing to do with defending DACA. He's a dinosaur and a generally reprehensible individual. He clearly, and very publicly, hated DACA.
Trump got boxed into a corner politically due to the hard right on this issue....most importantly by this lawsuit led by the Texas AG. I think he was convinced by advisors that the courts would have stricken down the program...so he might as well not piss off his Brietbart base by publicly defending it in court.
It was clear that the admin was overall very split on this....as was Trump himself.
I can easily flip this back to you....why didn't he just execute this order back in Jan, along with his other immigration orders, if he was so hellbent on taking it down?
The Atlantic basically said as much as I've said here....back last week before this broke.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...ion-hardliners-boxed-trump-in-on-daca/538623/
And when exactly has he gained leverage/used leverage to date?
As I said, the next time he actually gets involved enough to cut a deal will be a first. I don't honestly believe he has the intellectual capability to even be part of any grown up discussions regarding policy. He's nothing more than a ceremonial figurehead....kind of like a child-king. They pay their respects....nod while he blabs incoherently..then the adults go into another room and attempt to do real work.
Amazing... I'm not sure how many times I have said this, but Reagan (and Bush) were to the left of both Obama and Hillary back then. They wouldn't even come close to getting the Republican nomination today.
Meh. That piece was clearly designed to influence Trump's decision. You can spot these from a mile away -- because they're not loaded with all sorts of hyperbole and invective. And, besides, they're written before the fact.
