Trump is going to Mexico?

[Vic]

Illegals that have been in the country for a long time without committing any (other) crimes are not a high priority. And even though ICE's budget is more than the FBI, CIA, and DEA budgets combined, it still only goes so far.
How does Trump intend to do everything he promises to do with regards to illegal immigration without a substantial increase in government spending? What I've seen indicates a very poor cost-benefit ratio.

 

[agent00f]

Trump's Excellent Mexican Adventure:

He came.
He saw.
He flip-flopped.

I was listening to the news about his adventure in the car and it seems he stabbed Nieto in the back by saying shit like "they're going to pay for the wall, they just don't know it yet", after Nieto tells his electorate that he informed trump mexico wasn't going to pay for it. The 411 earlier is that Nieto was trying to make this an opportunity for everyone to look diplomatic, esp with his domestic popularity problem, but now he looks like a patsy at home; or iow he got trumped.

 

[VRAMdemon]

Illegals that have been in the country for a long time without committing any (other) crimes are not a high priority. And even though ICE's budget is more than the FBI, CIA, and DEA budgets combined, it still only goes so far.
How does Trump intend to do everything he promises to do with regards to illegal immigration without a substantial increase in government spending? What I've seen indicates a very poor cost-benefit ratio.

Not only that..

Has Trump ever suggested any reason at all why Mexico would pay for his wall?

From what I have heard...He said Mexicans in the US transfer a lot of money back to Mexico, and all he would have to do was tell Mexico he would block any transfer of funds to Mexico and they would gladly pay for the wall. He backed it up with some amounts I'm sure were thoroughly researched showing that the amount of money sent to Mexico is much more than the cost of the wall.

Now for the fun game: "Find all the legal & constitutional reasons the above is absurd".

As I understand..but correct me if I'm wrong...

There are Mexican citizens who are in the U.S. illegally, who are sending money transfers back to Mexico.

However, there are also Mexican citizens who are in the U.S. legally, who are doing the same thing.

And, finally, there are U.S. citizens (either naturalized immigrants, or born-in-the-U.S.) who are sending money to Mexico.

Holding money transfers back to Mexico "hostage" is, at a minimum, interfering with the third group, who are our own citizens, engaging in an absolutely legal financial transaction. Even the second group would represent interfering with citizens of another country, as they engage in an absolutely legal financial transaction.

How does he pull this off?

 

[Vic]

Not only that..

Has Trump ever suggested any reason at all why Mexico would pay for his wall?

From what I have heard...He said Mexicans in the US transfer a lot of money back to Mexico, and all he would have to do was tell Mexico he would block any transfer of funds to Mexico and they would gladly pay for the wall. He backed it up with some amounts I'm sure were thoroughly researched showing that the amount of money sent to Mexico is much more than the cost of the wall.

Now for the fun game: "Find all the legal & constitutional reasons the above is absurd".

As I understand..but correct me if I'm wrong...

There are Mexican citizens who are in the U.S. illegally, who are sending money transfers back to Mexico.

However, there are also Mexican citizens who are in the U.S. legally, who are doing the same thing.

And, finally, there are U.S. citizens (either naturalized immigrants, or born-in-the-U.S.) who are sending money to Mexico.

Holding money transfers back to Mexico "hostage" is, at a minimum, interfering with the third group, who are our own citizens, engaging in an absolutely legal financial transaction. Even the second group would represent interfering with citizens of another country, as they engage in an absolutely legal financial transaction.

How does he pull this off?

He can't. But the narrative allows him to communicate his primary message to his supporters, which is tribalism. His sales pitch is that being a member of the "Trump tribe" will give one superior access to and privileges from government at the expense of other American citizens who are not a part of his tribe. And this tribalism will be enforced by the police state, disguised as 'law and order.'
Trump is, quite frankly, the most un-American candidate ever to run for President on a major party ticket. He is a national socialist. In Trump's America, only his "Real Americans" will have access to equal protection of the laws.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

He can't. But the narrative allows him to communicate his primary message to his supporters, which is tribalism. His sales pitch is that being a member of the "Trump tribe" will give one superior access to and privileges from government at the expense of other American citizens who are not a part of his tribe. And this tribalism will be enforced by the police state, disguised as 'law and order.'
Trump is, quite frankly, the most un-American candidate ever to run for President on a major party ticket. He is a national socialist. In Trump's America, only his "Real Americans" will have access to equal protection of the laws.

His supporters are also blindly un-American as well. They support massive limits to free speech, freedom of religion etc... They are all for banning Muslims from any and every freedom they scream about for Christians. Ban where they can build mosques. Ban what they can wear. You name it. Kaepernick won't stand for the national anthem? Let's attack him viciously as un-American. The man is using his free speech rights to bring attention to grievances with his government. What's more American than that?

 

[Vic]

As an addendum, I want to address the usual Trump apologist talking point, which is that his unconstitutional policy proposals would apply only to non-US citizens. However, when asked if the Muslim travel ban would apply to American citizens who are Muslim, the Trump campaign response was "everyone." When discussing the natural born American citizen who is the federal judge presiding over his fraud trial, Trump cast doubt on his abilities solely because "He is a Mexican." And when confronted with the blatant unconstitutionalism of his proposals by a Gold Star family, all of whom are legal American citizens, Trump responded by questioning the family's sacrifice and patriotism solely on the basis of their religious faith.
These examples prove that there should be no doubt that Trump intends to push his tribalistic agenda, and use the force of the federal government, against legal American citizens.

 

[fskimospy]

His supporters are also blindly un-American as well. They support massive limits to free speech, freedom of religion etc... They are all for banning Muslims from any and every freedom they scream about for Christians. Ban where they can build mosques. Ban what they can wear. You name it. Kaepernick won't stand for the national anthem? Let's attack him viciously as un-American. The man is using his free speech rights to bring attention to grievances with his government. What's more American than that?

Attacking Kaepernick is especially ironic given the fact that Trump's whole campaign is based on the idea that America sucks right now.

 

[fskimospy]

He can't. But the narrative allows him to communicate his primary message to his supporters, which is tribalism. His sales pitch is that being a member of the "Trump tribe" will give one superior access to and privileges from government at the expense of other American citizens who are not a part of his tribe. And this tribalism will be enforced by the police state, disguised as 'law and order.'
Trump is, quite frankly, the most un-American candidate ever to run for President on a major party ticket. He is a national socialist. In Trump's America, only his "Real Americans" will have access to equal protection of the laws.

Yes, this is what I've thought for awhile but Trump has brought to a head. American politics are dominated by tribalism now, not disagreements over policy. I think this has to do with the breakdown of elite control over the parties. Now instead of a few small groups of somewhat corrupt people pursuing ideological agendas (and some graft!) we have vast swaths of almost entirely ignorant but enraged people who want to achieve power to 'get' the other tribes and elevate their own, not to pursue constructive policy.

 

[fskimospy]

As an addendum, I want to address the usual Trump apologist talking point, which is that his unconstitutional policy proposals would apply only to non-US citizens. However, when asked if the Muslim travel ban would apply to American citizens who are Muslim, the Trump campaign response was "everyone." When discussing the natural born American citizen who is the federal judge presiding over his fraud trial, Trump cast doubt on his abilities solely because "He is a Mexican." And when confronted with the blatant unconstitutionalism of his proposals by a Gold Star family, all of whom are legal American citizens, Trump responded by questioning the family's sacrifice and patriotism solely on the basis of their religious faith.
These examples prove that there should be no doubt that Trump intends to push his tribalistic agenda, and use the force of the federal government, against legal American citizens.

I wonder how many conservatives who (falsely) thought Obama was using the power of the IRS to attack his political enemies as a display of tyrannical power would gleefully endorse actual abuses of that sort from President Trump. I bet the answer is alarmingly high.

 

[Vic]

His supporters are also blindly un-American as well. They support massive limits to free speech, freedom of religion etc... They are all for banning Muslims from any and every freedom they scream about for Christians. Ban where they can build mosques. Ban what they can wear. You name it. Kaepernick won't stand for the national anthem? Let's attack him viciously as un-American. The man is using his free speech rights to bring attention to grievances with his government. What's more American than that?

Dissent will not be tolerated in Trump's America. And as the Constitutional powers of the Presidency are actually quite limited, when his agenda is blocked by legal means, he will look to his tribe to forward that agenda by threat of mob violence.
He has, in fact, already done this twice. First, when the GOP threatened to withhold the nomination from him and, second, when his poll numbers fell and his rhetoric changed to 'rigged elections' and 'second amendment people.'
I strongly recommend that all liberals and Democrats not only stop with their usual gun control debates, but go out and buy guns and get properly trained on how to use them. This threat is real.

 

[Vic]

I wonder how many conservatives who (falsely) thought Obama was using the power of the IRS to attack his political enemies as a display of tyrannical power would gleefully endorse actual abuses of that sort from President Trump. I bet the answer is alarmingly high.

Eski, they cheer every time the state guns down one of their political enemies in the streets.

 

[sandorski]

Not only that..

Has Trump ever suggested any reason at all why Mexico would pay for his wall?

From what I have heard...He said Mexicans in the US transfer a lot of money back to Mexico, and all he would have to do was tell Mexico he would block any transfer of funds to Mexico and they would gladly pay for the wall. He backed it up with some amounts I'm sure were thoroughly researched showing that the amount of money sent to Mexico is much more than the cost of the wall.

Now for the fun game: "Find all the legal & constitutional reasons the above is absurd".

As I understand..but correct me if I'm wrong...

There are Mexican citizens who are in the U.S. illegally, who are sending money transfers back to Mexico.

However, there are also Mexican citizens who are in the U.S. legally, who are doing the same thing.

And, finally, there are U.S. citizens (either naturalized immigrants, or born-in-the-U.S.) who are sending money to Mexico.

Holding money transfers back to Mexico "hostage" is, at a minimum, interfering with the third group, who are our own citizens, engaging in an absolutely legal financial transaction. Even the second group would represent interfering with citizens of another country, as they engage in an absolutely legal financial transaction.

How does he pull this off?

Believe him! [nods confidently]