My Rebuttal to: Trump’s Multi-Front War That Spooks Oil Markets

[AcK + 50]

22 hours ago, Jan van Eck said:

There is a big difference between putting up tariffs against Chinese products, than to do that to Mexican products.  Trump does not grasp that.  He is attempting to use his one size fits all formula.  Trump is not a sophisticated man.  What he is doing is stumbling around looking for a solution, and his ridiculous aides and advisors continue to cater to dumb ideas and push the Administration down dark paths that will hurt Americans.  You really don't want to get entrapped in all that.  

Exactly a point I made in another thread. Cant use a blunt weapon in all scenarios - Trump does not understand that. Mexico is so closely interlinked to US economy that they will play ball with The Duck - but that will be a validation/vindication of the size of US economy rather than the The Duck's actions. China is not playing ball - doubt EU/lot of APac would. Bloomberg seems to agree...

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-06-03/trump-s-mexico-tariffs-will-backfire

@Tom Kirkman

Pro-oil Tom but kinda of hard not to be Anti-Trump. Always happy to hear the opposite side however - always happy to disagree as well 😉

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

18 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

And you base this on what expertise in the field of border security? 

I base it on history. No walls ( or other extreme measures ) in history to keep people in or out has ever really worked... Hadrians wall; great wall of china; Iron curtain etc. 

I remember debating here with poster called @mthebold about this topic and I think even he in the end caved and agreed that instant ID for workers would do more to stop illegal immigration than a wall (I understand most illegals are visa overstayers). So a serious question : Why are you not outraged that Trump is not implimenting this very cheap practice that would stop most illegal immigration? Is that the leftists fault too???? 

Not everything trump does is good, but not everything is bad either. Same goes for leftists. Call a spade a spade.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Rasmus Jorgensen

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

10 hours ago, TomTom said:

For two interwoven economies like the US and Mexico, tariffs are disastrous.

I disagree.  Pay attention to this CNBC interview with CEA chair Kevin Hassett, starting around 3:30.

 

Counsel of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett appears on CNBC to discuss his decision to leave the White House; the purposeful importance of President Trump’s tariff threat on Mexican imports; and why overall trade reform is important.

 

 

10 hours ago, TomTom said:

Mexico would need to deploy its entire army in the border regions in order to stop most of the illegal immigration into the US, meaning that other parts of Mexico would become much more unsafe... 

Again, disagree.  Mexican police and Mexican military have actively assisted illegal immigrants from Central America travel thousands of miles through Mexico, to enter the U.S.   

Mexican police and military have in no way attempted to stop illegals from traversing through Mexico, but exactly the opposite, assisted illegal immigrants to get into the U.S. via Mexico.

[Rasmus Jorgensen + 1,169]

8 hours ago, Rodent said:

Never going to solve the drug problem by focusing on Mexico. It is merely the path, and nearly impossible to control that whole path.

Instead, glyphosate herbicide over Colombia. Entire Colombia. 

this will go a long way to cleaning up Mexico by default, and if Mexico is more habitable, we may see fewer immigrants from them. 

 The only reason why we, the greatest country on Earth, can't control its immigrant problems is because our government is too busy trying to get reelected and too busy arguing staunchly across party lines. Any other government would have a much better chance of taking care of it since they can just make it so without 5000 hours of Senate bickering only to come up short again. 

Why this focus on supply? Why not just reduce demand for both cheap illegal labour and drugs? Focusing on supply has done nothing to reduce drug consumption in the US, why not try to do something about demand? It would work on illegal immigration for sure.

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

As this topic got started with discussions about the new Trump policy of instituting tariffs for the sole purpose of inflicting pain in order to modify foreign-government behavior, and although it has morphed into various diatribes about firing squads for druggies and arrest of migrants, it just might be worthwhile to take a look back in tome as to how the USA and Mexico related prior to the current problems.

Fifty years ago Mexico operated on a total-exclusion policy.  The idea was "you want to sell it here, you have to make it here."  It was not so much tariffs as the mechanism, it was outright exclusion, basically a quota system where the quota was zero.  Now, under that system, who suffered?  US businesses did, for the most part. And that was because closed markets meant that the USA, then operating under the "most favored nation" principle [spelled out as "MFN" tariff],  would apply a staggering tariff to any nation that was not MFN.  Now I forget the exact numbers but I vaguely recall that most tariffs into the USA were around the 8% mark for MFN countries and perhaps 37% for non-MFN countries.  Perhaps some old hands who did import-export could chime in with more accurate numbers. 

The non-MFN countries were the Soviet Union (of course) and its Communist satellites, and included North Vietnam (of course). And places such as South Africa were hit with hefty trade barriers.  The upshot was that interesting products from those countries as a practical matter either could not or did not enter the USA.  And to no great surprise, mechanisms were adopted in turn that substantively prevented the sale of US products in those countries. 

So what happened was that you had these two trading blocs, roughly aligned politically with the Iron Curtain and the various adherents and satellites.  In the East I think they called it the COMECON; it was a long time ago and my memory is a bit hazy.  The net result was that you had parallel development of two sets of hard goods.  For example, Russia, the Ukraine, and Czechoslovakia would develop aircraft platforms of their own distinct style, the USA would do their thing with (civilian) Boeing, Douglas Aircraft, Lockheed, and Beechcraft, and Europe would typically either buy the Boeing/Douglas/Lockheed stuff or develop niche products such as the Viscount, or SAAB, or Aerospatiale.  So for example the airplanes that flew in and out of Mexico City into Cuba would be Ilyushin machines, and not from Lockheed.  And you would have the same set of two parallel development streams in other hard goods, including railway locomotives, trucks, diesel engines, power plants, and so forth. 

But let's remember: the real expertise in these sophisticated hard goods was Western, specifically mostly American (and Canadian).  This is not to shortchange the Europeans, but the Common Market there had not yet been properly developed.  So the USA/Canada market, albeit with a 17.5% tariff barrier, had that technical advantage and also had a huge collective market of some 325 million buyers. The Americans could have successful companies continuing to develop advanced goods  (especially in space rockets and military hardware, look at the aircraft carriers they built!) but could not penetrate either the COMECON market or two other market blocs, MERCOSUR and the British Empire bloc.  This thus restricted the big advantage the US firms had with economies of scale, where the marginal cost of production of one more railcar or bulldozer or truck was minimal compared with the fixed or sunk costs of those factories and engineering departments. 

MERCOSUR was a true common market in South America, basically Brasil and Argentina (with 95% of the internal trade) but also the other members of Uruguay, Paraguay,and Venezuela (until Venezuela was expelled a few years ago, with the advent of Chavez). MERCOSUR was a bit of a bellweather as they went all-out, with free movement of both labor and capital (any citizen of any member country could live and work anywhere) which is one of the most important aspects of a trading bloc. Now MERCOSUR had huge external tariff walls, up to I think around 35%, so again, if you wanted to sell your product in those countries, you have to set up a plant there and hire the locals and so forth. 

And the British had the "Commonwealth of Nations," all the countries that were either conquered and subjugated by England (such as India, Rhodesia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, NZ) or were simply incorporated into and are now just as much a part of the UK as London is, such as Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. The Empire operated on a total free trade, with zero tariffs and as a practical matter the free movement of people for work and residence. 

So the planet had these competing blocs and systems, and while you might have say Argentina selling to Canada, the bulk of each bloc was trading with its other members.  And tariffs and quotas would protect those internal bloc markets.

All that gets abolished with the rise of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the WTO gets bureaucratic and starts putting a stop to practices such as disguised subsidies to favored internal producers, such as the billions that Canada shoveled into Bombardier for the development of some railcars and of course the C-series aircraft. And where does all this leave Mexico, where we started?  Weill, Mexico had its exclusionary production system, it led to local millionaires (as they had no competition) and high internal food prices, and difficulty in selling their wares, so eventually Mexico joined up with its natural trading partners in NAFTA.  Did Mexico benefit from NAFTA?  Arguably, yes.  But so did the Americans, especially in food, where US agriculture could and did swamp Mexican markets - and creating a lot of unemployment.  Those displaced Mexican agricultural workers then adopted the practice of slipping into the USA to work on big-ag farms for a season, then slipping back home. So there was a labor pool adjustment - until that got politicized, and now you have the current big mess. 

The other big beneficiary was US capital goods manufacturers, specifically Caterpillar and Boeing, and the US financial services, the big US Banks that went with big Canadian banks (in large part the Royal Bank of Canada and the CIBC) that muscled their way into the Mexican lending markets. On balance, I would say that Mexico was the loser, as the distortions pushed Mexico into the Maquiladora system where cheap Mexican labor was used to do assembly of components, including clothing, for US firms.  

Everybody went through adjustments.  Now the USA disrupts that by picking fights with trading partners, picking big fights with the old COMECON memberships, especially Russia, picking fights with the Germans, picking fights with the Canadians, and now picking fights with the Mexicans. None of that makes any sense.  He is unravelling sixty years of development of larger markets for goods, labor and capital, all for short-term political talking points. Where it does make sense is with the Chinese, who brazenly cheat on every deal (and also steal intellectual property).  But that is what you get when you attempt to deal with the Communists, they have a different mentality and for them the preservation of the Party is most important.  That is the same as you had inside the Warsaw Pact with the KGB eliminating, with a bullet, those that did not share that approach, Party first, people a distant third.  Since you are never going to change the behavior of the Communists, you might as well put that into your planning up front. 

Destabilizing the Mexican economy is going to backfire.  The likely immediate result is more people flooding over that Border, wall or no wall. 

[Tom Kirkman + 8,860]

5 hours ago, AcK said:

Pro-oil Tom but kinda of hard not to be Anti-Trump. Always happy to hear the opposite side however - always happy to disagree as well 😉

No worries, I don't expect people to agree with me.

Here's UK reaction to Trump today, which will not be covered by Mainstream Media.  Look at the huge crowd of Trump supporters in the UK in this 30 second video. 

Massive support from British deplorables, as seen in the video.  Seriously, the crowd is enormous, and chanting "We Love Trump".

And here is a related screencap.

[D Coyne + 305]

22 hours ago, Rodent said:

No? They certainly do in San Francisco and a handful of other cities (for local elections). It's just a matter of time before that is extended to other cities/federal elections.

Rodent,

Correct, there are some cities that choose to allow non-citizens to vote.  I guess they believe that if someone pays taxes they should be able to vote, kind of like those terrorists in the "Sons of Liberty". 

I doubt this would be extended statewide or to Federal Elections, but that is up to the legislative, executive (via veto power), and judicial branches to determine at the Federal level.  I was thinking at the State and Federal level.

Any examples of non-citizens being able to vote in Statewide or Federal elections?

[Rodent + 1,424]

15 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

I guess they believe that if someone pays taxes they should be able to vote, kind of like those terrorists in the "Sons of Liberty". 

Oh, illegal immigrants are proving they pay taxes before they are allowed to vote? Are you suggesting that these cities allow illegal immigrants to vote because it's the right thing to do since they pay taxes (maybe)? That could be, I suppose. It's one theory. Another theory is that the left would like to stay in power and voting illegal immigrants could keep them there. Who knows. That's just one other opinion, equally plausible. 

Regardless of all that, I find it interesting that when I simply offer a fact that illegal immigrants are allowed to vote in certain cities, people feel the need to get surly about why that would be the case, in defense of those cities. To be clear, I offered not my opinion on illegal immigrants voting. 

Truth be told, I think it's bad practice for sure. But until I become President, my opinion matters not, any more than yours does. No one is looking to me to craft policy. Sleep easy, my friends.

R2020

 

[D Coyne + 305]

14 minutes ago, Rodent said:

Oh, illegal immigrants are proving they pay taxes before they are allowed to vote? Are you suggesting that these cities allow illegal immigrants to vote because it's the right thing to do since they pay taxes (maybe)? That could be, I suppose. It's one theory. Another theory is that the left would like to stay in power and voting illegal immigrants could keep them there. Who knows. That's just one other opinion, equally plausible. 

Regardless of all that, I find it interesting that when I simply offer a fact that illegal immigrants are allowed to vote in certain cities, people feel the need to get surly about why that would be the case, in defense of those cities. To be clear, I offered not my opinion on illegal immigrants voting. 

Truth be told, I think it's bad practice for sure. But until I become President, my opinion matters not, any more than yours does. No one is looking to me to craft policy. Sleep easy, my friends.

R2020

 

Rodent,

Sorry you took my response as surly.  Last I checked, the citizens of localities decide on the rules, but maybe it is different where you live.

Generally those in power try to stay there whether on the left, the right, or in the center.  That is fairly universal.

Generally where I have lived, I must register to vote, generally I have not been asked for a birth certificate or a passport, just a license.  So perhaps lots of illegal immigrants vote, as far as I know citizenship is not needed for a drivers license.  It has been a while since I registered to vote so I don't remember, maybe citizenship is checked somehow through registry of motor vehicles.

In any case I am not too worried about the illegal immigrants, I imagine they would be afraid to register to vote.

[D Coyne + 305]

19 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

Illegal immigrants do vote in U.S. elections.  Some local (Democrat) governments have advised illegal immigrants how to vote.

Examples?  Statewide, Federal?  Or just local.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/illegal-immigrants-2008-election/

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

5 hours ago, Rasmus Jorgensen said:

I base it on history. No walls ( or other extreme measures ) in history to keep people in or out has ever really worked... Hadrians wall; great wall of china; Iron curtain etc. 

I remember debating here with poster called @mthebold about this topic and I think even he in the end caved and agreed that instant ID for workers would do more to stop illegal immigration than a wall (I understand most illegals are visa overstayers). So a serious question : Why are you not outraged that Trump is not implimenting this very cheap practice that would stop most illegal immigration? Is that the leftists fault too???? 

Not everything trump does is good, but not everything is bad either. Same goes for leftists. Call a spade a spade.

Walls don't stop invading armies, but they do stop civilians.  Obviously, they won't stop every single civilian, but that's not necessary.  The goal is to reduce illegal immigration to an irrelevant trickle, and walls are perfectly capable of doing that. 

You're right though: mandating that everyone have an ID to vote, receive social services, and obtain employment would be more effective than a wall.  I suspect Trump doesn't do that because he's a pragmatist: 

1. His conservative voters are leery of such government oversight.  I grew up in a conservative area and recall a certain level of panicked concern over a national ID proposal.  These people would prefer that the border be tightly controlled so that legal US citizens can enjoy additional freedom.  Granted, the freedom they crave is largely a myth, but that's how they see it. 
2. Implementation of national ID would be too disruptive to US industries. 

#2 requires some explanation.  The US doesn't care about all illegal immigration; only the illegal immigration that's harmful.  "Harmful" is defined as "costly to whoever is concerned".  Conservative states view illegal laborers as "harmful" because they drive down wages.  Leftist states perceive illegal laborers as beneficial because they increase the voting base and contribute to those state's industries - at least for now.  In the future, we'll reach a point where leftist states become so overrun with destitute immigrants & their offspring that even the elites realize this was a mistake.  The conservatives simply figured out the long-term consequences first. 

Voter ID would indiscriminately and immediately remove all illegals, whereas a wall + ICE selectively targeting people allows illegal immigration to be eradicated as it benefits US citizens.  Who is allowed to stay and who gets removed would be situation dependent.  E.g.: 

• Many visa overstays have become contributing members of society.  They contribute more than they take, and everyone is happy to have them here.  They would be left alone while freeloaders would be targeted for removal. 
• Some industries have become dependent on cheap, immigrant labor - but they're automating quickly.  An ID would remove all illegal immigrants more quickly than companies can purchase automation equipment.  In some cases, it would remove laborers before automation equipment is available.  A wall + selective targeting allows ICE to remove groups of illegals as automation replaces them.  This avoids economic disruption. 
• Politicians want to selectively attack their opponents' industries.  E.g. leftists use lawsuits to attack Big Oil, and Trump could use ICE to attack Californian agriculture.  National ID requirements would indiscriminately attack all industries, whereas ICE can be told to concentrate on certain areas.

So yes, a national ID would be more effective at removing people, but it would also be remarkably bad at change management and useless to today's politicians.  Until that changes, I don't expect a national ID to happen. 

From a politician's point of view, the process needs to appear seamless and avoid damaging politically valuable people.  There might be a scenario where walls and ICE are used until illegal immigration is sufficiently small.  At that point, politicians may realize neither side will gain from illegal immigration, but both sides will gain from serving US citizens.  Once they realize that, their best option is to eliminate illegal immigration entirely through a heartwarming, bipartisan effort.  This is analogous to opposing armies banning chemical weapons: it doesn't happen because it's a humane thing to do; it happens because it reduces the probability of troops slaughtering their own officers and citizens beheading their own politicians. 

Is the current, de facto immigration policy ethically questionable?  Yes.  Does it adhere to the law?  Certainly not.  Is it my preference?  Vehemently no.  I prefer to solve problems quickly, temporary disruption notwithstanding.  Unfortunately, politicians don't operate according to what's ethically or legally correct.  They operate based on what powerful people find convenient.  It always has been and always will be what it is.  We the People don't make the rules; we just play the game. 

As a side note, this appears to be a shrewd, nuanced decision on Trump's part.  Maybe he's not the bumbling fool leftists claim he is. 

[Rodent + 1,424]

12 minutes ago, D Coyne said:

Last I checked, the citizens of localities decide on the rules, but maybe it is different where you live.

Citizens, yes. Party crashes, no. You come into my house, uninvited, and then think you have a say in how I run my household? The argument is actually so silly it doesn't warrant a defense to the contrary. They are not supposed to be here. You can't then come here and think you have a say. (Not "you" personally, of course).

As I said in my first post, I mentioned that some cities allow illegal immigrants to vote. I also said state and federal may be right around the corner. I have no evidence, and didn't imply that i did, that illegal immigrants voted in last federal election. I believe there are some reports that they have. There are others who refute those reports. I have no idea whether that's true or not.

And for the record, I'm all for immigration. Legal immigration. Our country has been built on the back of many a good immigrant. That said, as a Native American,  you all are immigrants to me.  

[alfonsosozayas + 6]

Hey Tom, I'm from Mexico, I agree 100% that the Dems position here has a lot more to do with populism than with making it easier for the Americans or Mexicans, being complacent with these activities only promotes other criminal activities that are destroying this beautiful country, however, I don't think that a multi-front war is a smart move for the US, and I don't see how raising taxes will benefit the people from the US since they will be the ones paying for those taxes...

Alfonso

On 6/3/2019 at 8:48 AM, Tom Kirkman said:

Watch how fast Mexico will magically be able to do something to improve the situation when they get slapped with 25% tariffs.

Time to stop rewarding bad behavior.

Severe reality adjustment is needed.  Change the mindset and watch how fast action takes place.

Pic related.

 

 

[D Coyne + 305]

34 minutes ago, Rodent said:

Citizens, yes. Party crashes, no. You come into my house, uninvited, and then think you have a say in how I run my household? The argument is actually so silly it doesn't warrant a defense to the contrary. They are not supposed to be here. You can't then come here and think you have a say. (Not "you" personally, of course).

As I said in my first post, I mentioned that some cities allow illegal immigrants to vote. I also said state and federal may be right around the corner. I have no evidence, and didn't imply that i did, that illegal immigrants voted in last federal election. I believe there are some reports that they have. There are others who refute those reports. I have no idea whether that's true or not.

And for the record, I'm all for immigration. Legal immigration. Our country has been built on the back of many a good immigrant. That said, as a Native American,  you all are immigrants to me.  

Hi Rodent,

I was unclear.  The citizens elect local representatives.  Those representatives make local laws, including laws which might allow non-citizens to vote.  My guess is that those laws generally do not allow illegal immigrants to vote, but I don't know, where I live only citizens are allowed to vote.

The point is that if I elect a representative to a town council, they can make laws including laws to allow non-citizens to vote.  Those laws can be challenged in court if one believes they violate the State or Federal constitution.

As far as I know these laws only allow legal immigrants who are non-citizens to vote.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/2018/07/17/maine-non-citizens-vote-elections/

Also note that "non-citizen" is different from illegal immigrant, some of these "non-citizens" may indeed be here illegally in some cases because they may have been brought here by their parents as children and have lived here "illegally" their entire lives.  

In San Francisco the "non-citizens" can vote for the school board, that is all.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/bayarea/article/Non-Citizen-Voter-Registration-Forms-Launched-For-13080464.php

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by D Coyne

[TomTom + 183]

7 hours ago, Tom Kirkman said:

I disagree.  Pay attention to this CNBC interview with CEA chair Kevin Hassett, starting around 3:30.

 

Counsel of Economic Advisers Chairman Kevin Hassett appears on CNBC to discuss his decision to leave the White House; the purposeful importance of President Trump’s tariff threat on Mexican imports; and why overall trade reform is important.

 

 

Again, disagree.  Mexican police and Mexican military have actively assisted illegal immigrants from Central America travel thousands of miles through Mexico, to enter the U.S.   

Mexican police and military have in no way attempted to stop illegals from traversing through Mexico, but exactly the opposite, assisted illegal immigrants to get into the U.S. via Mexico.

Sadly, it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree. It literally erodes the economy on both sides of the border.

Consumers on both sides are about to suffer from extremely stupid economic policy: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-03/goldman-capitulates-sees-full-blown-extended-trade-war-both-china-and-mexico

Average Americans will see higher prices for most consumables, investors will lose a ton of money, cross border trade will get crippled etc. 

I'm not surprised you can't see all of this, because you live far away in Malaysia, but I actually already feel it in my spendable income down here in Mexico City... 

The caravans of immigrants must indeed be stopped, and I do agree that Mexico can do more about it, but lets be absolutely honest. If you were a Mexican policymaker... would you not rather try to make your own country safer instead of sorting out problems for your Northern neighbor who cannot get its shit together in congress and therefore not defend its own borders? 

The U.S. needs to protect its own borders, and cannot expect Mexico to do it for them.  The same situation is going on in the EU where we now expect countries like Turkey, Morocco and Libya to protect our borders... simply an unsustainable situation. 
 

This whole tariff thing is just a show for his own public, and a bad one for that... a two-state solution in which the US funds Mexico to stop this uncontrolled migration is of course a much more effective solution, but sadly, that doesn't doesn't create great headlines on Dailycaller and Breitbart.  

Believe me, I'm seen as conservative by almost all of my friends, and I do not support uncontrolled migration, but breaking down free-trade hurts literally everyone out there, and people who support that are just not very well informed. 


I still haven't seen even one counter argument for this... and sadly, there are no good counter arguments for this, because you are literally playing with hundreds of billions of trade.... all money that could've been invested in effective border security measures.

[Rodent + 1,424]

8 minutes ago, TomTom said:

The U.S. needs to protect its own borders, and cannot expect Mexico to do it for them.  

Indeed. 

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

4 hours ago, D Coyne said:

Any examples of non-citizens being able to vote in Statewide or Federal elections?

None at the moment in the USA.  However, the current regulations are a historical anomaly.  Historically "non-citizens" did vote in large numbers in both Statewide and Federal elections. It basically stopped with the advent of Senator Joe McCarthy in the early 1950's and the Communist Bogeyman. 

I no longer get into these discussions as facts get in the way of the prejudices that are rampantly floated about.  Let me just say that everyone on this thread speaking about voting has it wrong, folks are saying what they think matters should be, and none of it is historically accurate, specifically including Rodi, and I will leave it at that.  Cheers. 

[Rodent + 1,424]

9 minutes ago, Jan van Eck said:

 folks are saying what they think matters should be, and none of it is historically accurate, specifically including Rodi, and I will leave it at that.  Cheers. 

Please don't leave it at that

[Jan van Eck + 7,558]

1 minute ago, Rodent said:

Please don't leave it at that

Sorry, Rodi, there is just so much mis-information, and so much misunderstanding, and so much personal prejudice, floating about on the subject of migrants and visitors to the USA, that whenever I try to explain it in detail, I run into a barrage of flak that would bring down even the most stalwart airplane.  I just cannot get into it any more. 

Just for example, you continually reference "illegal immigrants."  There are very, very few illegal immigrants in the USA.  What you are referencing are disparate groups: visitors and undocumented persons.  It may surprise you to learn that it is not "illegal" to be in the USA without entry-visa documents. The USA has agreements with other countries that are favored nations to not require visas.  So for example you can be a Canadian and be free to enter and leave the country at will.  You have no "documents" because they do not exist for your nationality. As a practical matter, you can stay forever in the USA as a guest of the Administration - as long as you do not work, do not engage in internal politics (a big no-no), and avoid various categories of crimes. For example, if you beat your spouse you are subject to arrest and deportation.  If you are ticketed for speeding and either pay or contest the infraction charge you are not.  And so on. But none of that makes you "illegal."

This whole business of "illegal" is a frenzy generated by essentially racist ideas against "the browns," people from South of the Border who have brownish skin (mostly) and speak Spanish or a native language.  As a practical matter, that is Spanish. But nobody is referencing some Irish college kid who shows up to work in the hotel and restaurant trade on Cape Cod for the Summer as an "illegal," those transient migrants are ignored.  I can tell you that without the transients, typically from Ireland, England, and Canada, the Cape Cod tourist trade would shut down.  But they are white, so nobody cares.  They are working, so they are breaking immigration laws, but even that does not make them "illegal," only undocumented.  And that is what the real big fight, not the newspaper big fight, is all about: that the law itself does not provide for a person found inside the USA without documents to be "illegal".    It becomes "illegal" only in the popular mind. 

And unless you can get past that reality, which you do not, and get past the self-generated images, which nobody does, all the rest of the arguments become nothing more than rank hysteria, so I cannot get involved in it.  Because then the debate is not rational, it is emotional.  And nobody can debate emotions, that does not work.  So I say nothing further, other than to state that none of you posters here are accurate, you are all speaking to your internal fears and pre-conceptions.  Cheers.  And I really do admire you, Rodi, so please don't get angry with me, it is simply that in this specific case, you are starting out from the wrong foundation. And that taints all that follows.

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

12 hours ago, Wastral said:

 

Kill the drug dealers.  If you do not want to die you can 1) give up your drug dealer source and get a 10 year sentence or 2) not deal drugs. 

 

The vast majority of the distribution network would be Americans.  Easy to say kill them until it's your kid who was caught with a baggie of party treats.

Giving up your source can get you just as dead.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Enthalpic

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

Just now, Enthalpic said:

The vast majority of the distribution network would be Americans.  Easy to say kill them until it's your kid who was caught with a baggie of party treats.

Majority are citizens.  I know a couple of them and so does everyone else who lives in a city/town.  If you are unwilling to legalize what they sell and collect taxes then you MUST revert to rule of law.  SO they are citizens?  So what?  They are death dealers.  Time to give them death in return.  Do not want to die?  Give up your drug dealer.  End of story.  If you are unwilling to do the right thing, then YOU are the murderer and deserve everything coming.  Kill the drug dealers and it will stop near instantly. 

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

2 minutes ago, Wastral said:

Majority are citizens.  I know a couple of them and so does everyone else who lives in a city/town.  If you are unwilling to legalize what they sell and collect taxes then you MUST revert to rule of law.  SO they are citizens?  So what?  They are death dealers.  Time to give them death in return.  Do not want to die?  Give up your drug dealer.  End of story.  If you are unwilling to do the right thing, then YOU are the murderer and deserve everything coming.  Kill the drug dealers and it will stop near instantly. 

OK just wanted to make sure you weren't just planning on killing "them."  Death sentence for an addictive substance is pretty harsh... but you do you.

Trying to win the "war on drugs" using punishment clearly doesn't work,.  You just get full prisons where they learn how to become even better criminals (unless you do execution of an American without trial).  

[Enthalpic + 1,496]

Voter ID's etc. is a scary path.  Next step is demanding proof without just reason.  "Your papers please."

The movie The Circle is pretty good.  Future where you are required to have "Facebook" in order to vote.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Enthalpic

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

13 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

Voter ID's etc. is a scary path.  Next step is demanding proof without just reason.  "Your papers please."

The movie The Circle is pretty good.  Future where you are required to have "Facebook" in order to vote.

Hate to break it to you, you may wish to open your eyes to reality.  "Your papers please" has been true since the introduction of the drivers license over 100 years ago.  Age limits for buying Tobacco/spirits etc etc etc. 

The only thing in this world you do not have to have an ID for anymore IS voting.  That is not true either.  Is not true as you have to have an ID to get on the voter roles to begin with....  The entire so called "issue" is nothing but stupid fools flapping their gums for people with VERY low IQ.  Why they think this is a winning issue says many things about those pushing it. 

[footeab@yahoo.com + 2,192]

21 minutes ago, Enthalpic said:

 Death sentence for an addictive substance is pretty harsh...

So, do you always purposefully lie by changing peoples words?