HawkShack.com

Two articles caught my attention and highlighted what I feel is wrong with Trump's immigration policy.

Yesterday US customs agents recorded the 3rd largest drug bust in US history, and it wasn't being attempted to be brought in by a couple of guys wearing sombreros leading a burro through the desert while crossing the southern border. No, it happened in Philadelphia at a port of entry, a good 2000 miles from the border with Mexico.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/philadelph ... 019-06-18/

It's the same story with illegal aliens. The majority of undocumented aliens are here not because they swam the Rio Grande or snuck in through the Arizona desert ducking behind cactus plants. Most are here because they have overstayed their visas, meaning that they came through a port of entry.

On Monday evening, Trump tweeted that starting next week his administration "will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in." This type of rhetoric plays well to his political base, but his big mouth puts more pressure on border control agents:

Trump blatantly exposed an upcoming enforcement operation, potentially jeopardizing the kind of sensitive effort that takes months to plan and relies on secrecy. The president's tweets put new, fresh demands on Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency in charge of removals, which is already overwhelmed, lacking staff, funding and detention space for its current work. And any massive roundup that includes deportation of families would be sure to spark outrage.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/texas/artic ... 010397.php

Does DJT truly want to fix the immigration 'crisis', or is it more important to him to have it as a political weapon?

RiverDog wrote:Two articles caught my attention and highlighted what I feel is wrong with Trump's immigration policy.

Yesterday US customs agents recorded the 3rd largest drug bust in US history, and it wasn't being attempted to be brought in by a couple of guys wearing sombreros leading a burro through the desert while crossing the southern border. No, it happened in Philadelphia at a port of entry, a good 2000 miles from the border with Mexico.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/philadelph ... 019-06-18/

It's the same story with illegal aliens. The majority of undocumented aliens are here not because they swam the Rio Grande or snuck in through the Arizona desert ducking behind cactus plants. Most are here because they have overstayed their visas, meaning that they came through a port of entry.

For pete's sake River. Are you suggesting that we just ingnore the drugs and 140,000+ illegals coming across the southern border because they are not big enough? The child trafficking is not horrible enough? The 5,000 people dying from the drugs isn't enough to do anything about? Please do tell, what is enough for you to take an action? 1 is enough for me but I may be like the story in the Bible where there was a negotiation with God about how many "good men" needed to be found before God would spare the city from his wrath. The only difference is that I'm arguing that one horrible person is enough to take action to prevent the horrors on the border and in our country.

On Monday evening, Trump tweeted that starting next week his administration "will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in." This type of rhetoric plays well to his political base, but his big mouth puts more pressure on border control agents:

Trump blatantly exposed an upcoming enforcement operation, potentially jeopardizing the kind of sensitive effort that takes months to plan and relies on secrecy. The president's tweets put new, fresh demands on Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the agency in charge of removals, which is already overwhelmed, lacking staff, funding and detention space for its current work. And any massive roundup that includes deportation of families would be sure to spark outrage.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/texas/artic ... 010397.php

Does DJT truly want to fix the immigration 'crisis', or is it more important to him to have it as a political weapon?

Once again the story you paint is wrong. No border patrol agents will be involved, it will be ICE. They are deporting the people who did not show up for their Asylum trials and thus have been ordered deported.

Does DJT truly want to fix the immigration 'crisis', or is it more important to him to have it as a political weapon?

The latter, and the same goes for the other side of the political aisle.

They are deporting the people who did not show up for their Asylum trials and thus have been ordered deported.

And Trump just made it much tougher for them to do so, which I think was RD's point.

Does DJT truly want to fix the immigration 'crisis', or is it more important to him to have it as a political weapon?

burrrton wrote:
The latter, and the same goes for the other side of the political aisle.

I disagree. He's implemented many things just to be blocked by judges or the House. If there's something he can do that he hasn't tried and been blocked, I'd like to hear what it is.

They are deporting the people who did not show up for their Asylum trials and thus have been ordered deported.

And Trump just made it much tougher for them to do so, which I think was RD's point.

Maybe but I doubt it. "IF" they know where they live now, they can camp outside until they come out. It might take a week longer as people are creatures of habit and they will return to their normal habits of going outside or to work or to the grocery store soon enough. Even if it takes 3 weeks for them to get back into their routine, ICE can just delay the pickups that long and that's not "much" tougher than what they'd go through now. Besides, maybe the strategy is to have a number of them voluntarily deport themselves based on the tough talk.

We don't know what the strategy was in the first place to determine that it got much harder. That's like saying a guard missed his block but we don't know what the line call was so it could have been the tackle, center or RB that actually missed the block.

He's implemented many things just to be blocked by judges or the House.

I actually agree with you a bit on this. He's taken a lot of steps toward improving the situation.

I still think he enjoys the political cudgel it provides, because it keeps the base whipped up, but fair point.

We don't know what the strategy was in the first place to determine that it got much harder.

Notifying the people you intend to arrest of your intent to arrest a week ahead of time cannot *not* make it harder to do so.

I'm not saying it completely neutralizes the effort, but there is no argument it wasn't detrimental.

Burrton,

I understand your point. I am not totally in agreement with it but I can't defend the opposite side because I don't know what the real strategy is. I think there is an anterior motive here but I can't prove it.

idhawkman wrote:For pete's sake River. Are you suggesting that we just ingnore the drugs and 140,000+ illegals coming across the southern border because they are not big enough?

I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but it's a matter of establishing priorities. The vast majority of illegal drugs come through ports of entry, so that's where the emphasis should be. You are not going to be able to smuggle in very many drugs on horseback across the desert. In order to move the quantities of drugs needed to support that activity they have to be shipped via truck, plane, rail, or ocean going container. Trump should be concentrating on upgrading facilities at ports of entry, and as the article suggests, many aspects of our overall border enforcement is under staffed and inadequate.

RiverDog=]]Does DJT truly want to fix the immigration 'crisis', or is it more important to him to have it as a political weapon?[/quote]

[quote="burrrton wrote:The latter, and the same goes for the other side of the political aisle.

I agree, but I have two points: The first is that two wrongs don't make a right. Second is that the Dems are reacting to Trump and his statements/actions regarding immigration, and in some cases, they are, indeed, making political hay. But it was never a major issue until Trump elevated it, so IMO he owns it.

idahawkman wrote:They are deporting the people who did not show up for their Asylum trials and thus have been ordered deported.

burrrton wrote:And Trump just made it much tougher for them to do so, which I think was RD's point.

It was. I can only conclude that Trump was either aware that telegraphing his punch would result in fewer arrests but didn't care because it's more valuable to him as a political issue OR he was just plain stupid and didn't realize what he was doing when he opened his cake hole. I really can't say for sure which one is true, maybe a little of both, but there are no other reasonable explanations.

idhawkman wrote:For pete's sake River. Are you suggesting that we just ingnore the drugs and 140,000+ illegals coming across the southern border because they are not big enough?

RiverDog wrote:I don't know where you are getting your numbers, but it's a matter of establishing priorities. The vast majority of illegal drugs come through ports of entry, so that's where the emphasis should be. You are not going to be able to smuggle in very many drugs on horseback across the desert. In order to move the quantities of drugs needed to support that activity they have to be shipped via truck, plane, rail, or ocean going container. Trump should be concentrating on upgrading facilities at ports of entry, and as the article suggests, many aspects of our overall border enforcement is under staffed and inadequate.

I was wondering what you would come up with but just so you know, the drug bust you cited was being exported from Philly to EU. So now you have to ask yourself a serious question, where'd they come from since we don't manufacture it here in the US.

I'm not much concerned about immigration with the economy this good. My primary concerns with immigration is leaving it unchecked during economic down periods and the use of immigration to drive down wages and globalize the workforce forcing Americans to compete for jobs with nations with a lower standard of living. But we have a low unemployment rate, business is booming, birth rates with Americans are fairly low, and we need more growth which comes with population growth.

The immigration issue is so complex as to why certain members of the American political base are concerned it's difficult to discuss in a forum topic. I know cultural dilution is a huge point for the hardcore anti-immigrant base like that lady that pushes it (can't remember her name0. Not to mention the Democrats have been very successful converting immigrants to left supporters by making Republicans seem racist and intolerant. One of the few good ideas of Bush Jr. was courting immigrants to support Republicans. Immigrants are surprisingly conservative in their social beliefs. If the Republicans would get their heads out of their asses on immigration, they could really gain a lot of conservative support from immigrants. We could go back and forth on a ton of issues associated with immigration, but no one would much change their mind.

I know for myself my primary concern was economic. Since the economy is blazing along at the moment, more demand from immigrants is likely helpful. Though some crime does come through immigration as has been stated, it's not anywhere near a majority. In fact, it's a very, very small percentage. It stands out because less than 1% of a million people legal and illegal is still a lot of added crime and problems. But I don't see that as a reason to halt immigration considering the majority of crime is still committed by American born folks and some crime is just dumb laws and statistical manipulation, so it's not a good way to decide your immigration policy.

idhawkman wrote:I was wondering what you would come up with but just so you know, the drug bust you cited was being exported from Philly to EU. So now you have to ask yourself a serious question, where'd they come from since we don't manufacture it here in the US.

Not from illegal immigration. It came from standard smuggling like for years. Smuggling the CIA has supported at times to fund black budget operations that are well documented and part of the historical record. The drug war has been and continues to be a massive failure. Who cares if they caught this stash, more will make it in.

And on top of that prescription drugs legally manufactured and shipped into the the States are the most abused drugs in the nation.

Aseahawkfan wrote:And on top of that prescription drugs legally manufactured and shipped into the the States are the most abused drugs in the nation.

Even if this is true, its not a reason to turn a blind eye to it. Like River likes to say, two wrongs don't make it right. Same thing applies here, just because its not the #1 problem doesn't mean you have to ignore it. Unlike River though, I think the US is capable of doing more than one thing at a time with this president. Past presidents maybe not, but this one, yep!

idhawkman wrote:I was wondering what you would come up with but just so you know, the drug bust you cited was being exported from Philly to EU. So now you have to ask yourself a serious question, where'd they come from since we don't manufacture it here in the US.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Not from illegal immigration. It came from standard smuggling like for years. Smuggling the CIA has supported at times to fund black budget operations that are well documented and part of the historical record. The drug war has been and continues to be a massive failure. Who cares if they caught this stash, more will make it in.

And on top of that prescription drugs legally manufactured and shipped into the the States are the most abused drugs in the nation.

I'm pretty much with you on the war on drugs as far as how we deal with the users. But stopping illegal drugs should still be a priority, and more rigid inspection methods at ports of entry are the most economical and effective measure we have in reducing the flow and taking drugs that were not manufactured in a safe manner from hitting the streets. A border wall does next to nothing in stopping the flow of illegal drugs. And yes, I now realize which direction the flow in the Philly bust was going. But it does not diminish the point I was making regarding the absurdity of constructing a multi billion dollar wall across hundreds of miles of open desert.

As far as prescription drugs goes, yes, it is a problem that needs to be addressed. We need to continue our R&D that can discover new methods of pain control or new drugs that do the same thing as opioids without the addictive side effects. But we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. My wife has a pain management issue with her MS and rheumatoid arthritis, but over the past few years, it has become extremely difficult for her to obtain opioids from a pharmacy and physicians are extremely reluctant to prescribe them.

RiverDog wrote:I'm pretty much with you on the war on drugs as far as how we deal with the users. But stopping illegal drugs should still be a priority, and more rigid inspection methods at ports of entry are the most economical and effective measure we have in reducing the flow and taking drugs that were not manufactured in a safe manner from hitting the streets. A border wall does next to nothing in stopping the flow of illegal drugs. And yes, I now realize which direction the flow in the Philly bust was going. But it does not diminish the point I was making regarding the absurdity of constructing a multi billion dollar wall across hundreds of miles of open desert.

As far as prescription drugs goes, yes, it is a problem that needs to be addressed. We need to continue our R&D that can discover new methods of pain control or new drugs that do the same thing as opioids without the addictive side effects. But we have to be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. My wife has a pain management issue with her MS and rheumatoid arthritis, but over the past few years, it has become extremely difficult for her to obtain opioids from a pharmacy and physicians are extremely reluctant to prescribe them.

This is an area of focus for biotech. I've been following companies working on non-opioid or anti-addictive forms of opioid painkillres. This is an area of great concern and would create huge profits for the company able to supply a painkiller that did the job but wasn't addictive. At the moment I'm invested in Heron Therapeutics as they have a good product that should help some after they figure out the manufacturing issues the FDA cited in their CRL rejection.