2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Bluto]

Please wake me up when any other candidate admits that we have a problem on our southern border, and have for years.

You are right. The problem is stupid US Foreign policy decisions (guess who trained the Zeta Cartel), free trade boondoggles and our moronic drug policies that helped turn Mexico into a Narco State.

 

[RDU Irish]

I'm counting the days till Donald Trump sticks his blade into the back of the GOP and throws his support behind Hillary. If you watch any professional wrestling, you can see this coming from a mile away.

So true - Trump is an entertainer.

I do credit him for exponentially increasing the visibility of the race. I don't think anyone out there looked un-Presidential (except Trump) so seeing a deep bench of quality candidates bodes well for the party.

 

[RDU Irish]

Trump 24.3%
Bush 12.5%
Walker 9.5%
Huckabee 6.8%
Carson 5.8%
Cruz 5.5%
Rubio 5.3%
Paul 4.5%
Christie 3.5%
Kasich 2.8%
Perry 1.8%
Santorum 1.5%
Fiorina 1.3%
Jindal 1.3%
Graham 0.5%
Jim Gilmore and George Pataki = GTFO

Current standings from RealClearPolitics, Funny that Pataki and Gilmore aren't even in the table on their page.

I am surprised Huckabee is so high, must be name recognition from the last run. I really thought Rand Paul would be a 10% guy at this stage with a stronger base. Ted Cruz is probably a rapid base, not sure how he builds on that.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

You are right. The problem is stupid US Foreign policy decisions (guess who trained the Zeta Cartel), free trade boondoggles and our moronic drug policies that helped turn Mexico into a Narco State.

So if it weren't for the damn US, Mexico would have

1) a booming economy

2) a non corrupt government/ police force

3) top notch education

4) people fleeing Texas for Mexico

Got it

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Are you honestly saying that it wasn't a debate topic in the last election or that it won't be this time? Obama even created legislation addressing it. Just because you don't like his solution, doesn't mean he didn't admit there was a problem and took action. Are you really this disingenuous?



Nice dodge...

1) it's been a topic for decades. No candidate has been as homest about it as Trump, amd he's not my first or second choice

2) Dodge? Dude in 7 years I've never dodged a poster or an issue. Buster and I have had conversations about those topics as recently as a fee months ago. You'll have to ask him why he wahts to re visit them.

 

[woolybug25]

1) it's been a topic for decades. No candidate has been as homest about it as Trump, amd he's not my first or second choice

How has he been more honest about it? Because of his insensitive tone? That's not being more honest, it's just being louder. Every candidate in my lifetime addressed it. Many ran with it as one of their main campaign points. They at least cam with ideas that were reasonable to address it, Trump's solutions for the problem are far cries from that and could, in and of itself, be considered dishonest.

2) Dodge? Dude in 7 years I've never dodged a poster or an issue. Buster and I have had conversations about those topics as recently as a fee months ago. You'll have to ask him why he wahts to re visit them.

He probably wants to revisit them with you because he kills you with facts and all you've came back with is conjecture. Just because you took a beating on it three months ago, doesn't make you more qualified today.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Obama even created legislation addressing it. Just because you don't like his solution, doesn't mean he didn't admit there was a problem and took action. Are you really this disingenuous?

Did he "admit" there was a problem? In his view, the "problem" is that his party cannot yet tap into these would-be Democrats. He refuses to enforce the law as it is written now, and yet expects people to think that he would keep promises about enforcement?

The strategy of the Democrats -and many Republicans- has been amnesty first, enforcement later (and, as it always turns out, never). This does not recognize a "problem" on the Southern border. The "problem" has always been people who think our laws should actually be enforced. Remember, Congress authorized the construction of a border fence in 2006. That bill required double-fencing in very specific locations. And yet we know that this has not been built, nine years later.

If we enforced our laws, illegal immigration would stop. Why don't we do so? Because elites -but especially Democrats- don't want it to stop.

 

[EddytoNow]

Did he "admit" there was a problem? In his view, the "problem" is that his party cannot yet tap into these would-be Democrats. He refuses to enforce the law as it is written now, and yet expects people to think that he would keep promises about enforcement?

The strategy of the Democrats -and many Republicans- has been amnesty first, enforcement later (and, as it always turns out, never). This does not recognize a "problem" on the Southern border. The "problem" has always been people who think our laws should actually be enforced. Remember, Congress authorized the construction of a border fence in 2006. That bill required double-fencing in very specific locations. And yet we know that this has not been built, nine years later.

If we enforced our laws, illegal immigration would stop. Why don't we do so? Because elites -but especially Democrats- don't want it to stop.

The vast majority of these immigrants want only one thing, an opportunity for a better life. They want the same thing my Irish and French immigrant great-grandparents wanted, a chance to work and support their families. Of course, there are a few actual criminals crossing the border, but to taint the masses with the crimes of the few is not fair to those who have committed no crimes other than crossing an imaginary line separating one country from another.

What's needed is a legal way to cross the border and obtain citizenship or a work visa that can be completed quickly and efficiently with cooperation between the Mexican and United States governments to secure adequate background checks. The sooner the fiery rhetoric stops from the likes of Donald Trump and others, the sooner this can take place.

But given the pace at which our government does anything, is it realistic to expect an impoverished family to wait while our elected representatitives pose for photo ops and say outrageous things to secure a few more votes in the next election? I don't know about you, but given the same circumstances I would be crossing the border looking to improve my family's lot in life. And based upon the pace at which the US elected officials can agree on anything, I wouldn't be waiting for them to come up with a solution anytime soon.

 

[GATTACA!]

Nothing like belittling the issue by calling it an imaginary line.

 

[EddytoNow]

It may be an over-simplification to refer to the border as an imaginary line, but that is exactly what it is. The land south of the border looks pretty much like it does north of the border. Borders between countries shift with the political winds, and a shifting of the United States-Mexico border did occur in the mid-19th century as a result of the war with Mexico and much of the territory north of the Rio Grande was formally the territory of Mexico.

And unless you intend to jail everyone in Mexico, poor immigrants will continue to find ways to cross that border looking for a better life. You can keep sending them back, but they will keep coming until they successfully cross the border and find work. If I were in their cirmcumstances I would do the same thing, and so would most of the other posters on IE.

 

[Cackalacky]

Sooooooo....Donald Trump.......that Megyn Kelly comment.....of course you meant her NOSE.

 

[Bluto]

So if it weren't for the damn US, Mexico would have

1) a booming economy

2) a non corrupt government/ police force

3) top notch education

4) people fleeing Texas for Mexico

Got it

Glad you're finally starting to see the light. If it wasn't for the "damn" United States and white supremist ideology of Manifest Destiny Texas as well as the entire inter mountain west would still be Mexico so there is that. Without the war on drugs and the rediculous anti socialist boogey men of the 80's Mexico would not be a narco state whose arguably most violent cartel is composed of US trained ex special forces units. So there's that. Without NAFTA which in turn allowed the US to flood Mexico with cheap corn many Mexicans who were farmers would have continued doing what they were doing Instead, their entire livelyhoods were destroyed thus forcing them to seek jobs in places like the U.S. or to become foot soldiers for the emerging drug cartels, so there is that too.

Mexico does have a pretty strong economy in the macro sense (the second richest man in the world is a Mexican national). It's a matter of how that economy is structured and who benefits. The fact is we don't know what Mexico and much of Central and South America could have become because the US has constantly meddled in those countries affairs primarily at the behest of US corpoate interests.

Now to close the circle on another question as to why "Hipanics" don't vote for conservative politicians simply refer to the dismissive and arrogant tone of Polish Leppys post.

 

[Cackalacky]

Hamilton Project Policy Paper

Related Topics: Global Economy

Authors:

Adam Looney • Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
Michael Greenstone • The Milton Friedman Professor in Economics; Director, Energy Policy Institute at Chicago, University of Chicago

This policy memo explores some of the questions frequently raised around immigration in the United States and provides facts drawn from publicly available data sets and the academic literature. Most Americans agree that the current U.S. immigration system is flawed. Less clear, however, are the economic facts about immigration — the real effects that new immigrants have on wages, jobs, budgets, and the U.S. economy — facts that are essential to a constructive national debate. This memo paints a more nuanced portrait of American immigration than is portrayed in today’s debate. In particular, the following facts indicate that the U.S. immigrant population is far from a monolith; on the contrary, it includes several groups, each of which affects the U.S. economy in a different way.

1. Today’s Immigrants Hail From More Diverse Backgrounds Than They Did A Century Ago

2. Immigrants Bring A Diverse Set Of Skills And Educational Backgrounds

3. On Average, Immigrants Improve The Living Standards Of Americans

4. Immigrants Are Not A Net Drain On The Federal Government Budget

5. Both Immigration Enforcement Funding And The Number Of Unauthorized Immigrants Have Increased Since 2003

6. Immigrants Do Not Disproportionately Burden U.S. Correctional Facilities And Institutions

7. Recent Immigrants Reflect America’s Melting Pot

8. The Skill Composition Of U.S. Immigrants Differs From That Of Other Countries

9. Immigrants Start New Businesses And File Patents At Higher Rates Than U.S.-Born Citizens

10. America Is Issuing A Declining Number Of Visas For High-Skill Workers

This was written in 2010. It should be noted that since this was written the illegal immigrant population has stabilized over the last five years.

 

[NDgradstudent]

The vast majority of these immigrants want only one thing, an opportunity for a better life. They want the same thing my Irish and French immigrant great-grandparents wanted, a chance to work and support their families.

It is interesting how people think that their experiences or those of their families are always going to be the norm. They aren't. Remittances account for more of Mexico's GDP than tourism. This is why the Mexican government encourages illegal immigration. Did your ancestors send tons of money back to Ireland or France?

Of course, there are a few actual criminals crossing the border,

More than a few.

What's needed is a legal way to cross the border and obtain citizenship or a work visa that can be completed quickly and efficiently with cooperation between the Mexican and United States governments to secure adequate background checks. The sooner the fiery rhetoric stops from the likes of Donald Trump and others, the sooner this can take place.

What we need is a large and heavily guarded wall. Unlike a flag, our border is not a symbol of national independence; it is a fact of national independence.

But given the pace at which our government does anything, is it realistic to expect an impoverished family to wait while our elected representatitives pose for photo ops and say outrageous things to secure a few more votes in the next election?

Sometimes obeying the law is difficult. When I am driving to work I am tempted to go 85 rather than 65 on the interstate. Even so, I have broken the law that everybody agrees to follow.

Fully one-third of Mexicans -40 million people- say that they would move to the U.S. if possible. 150 million people around the world say the same thing. Many of these people are poorer than Mexicans. Should they all be allowed to come? Is our country allowed to have any immigration law at all?

 

[IrishinSyria]

I don't understand politics. Shouldn't it be the conservatives pushing for a world with minimal borders, allowing labor and materials to cross in accordance with the demands of the market?

 

[IrishinSyria]

Just kidding. Obviously, xenophobia is a stronger political force than economic literacy or ideological consistency.

 

[NDgradstudent]

I don't understand politics. Shouldn't it be the conservatives pushing for a world with minimal borders, allowing labor and materials to cross in accordance with the demands of the market?

Abolish welfare and we can talk about that.

 

[EddytoNow]

Abolish welfare and we can talk about that.

Your economic philosophy is pretty consistent with the one espoused by Trevelyan between 1845 to 1849. And that, in itself, is one of the primary reasons the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party has little appeal to Hispanics, Blacks, Women, Young Adults, Asians, Labor, etc.

 

[Cackalacky]

Abolish welfare and we can talk about that.

I am assuming you included corporate welfare in this statement to right?

 

[Cackalacky]

It is interesting how people think that their experiences or those of their families are always going to be the norm. They aren't. Remittances account for more of Mexico's GDP than tourism. This is why the Mexican government encourages illegal immigration. Did your ancestors send tons of money back to Ireland or France?



More than a few.



What we need is a large and heavily guarded wall. Unlike a flag, our border is not a symbol of national independence; it is a fact of national independence.



Sometimes obeying the law is difficult. When I am driving to work I am tempted to go 85 rather than 65 on the interstate. Even so, I have broken the law that everybody agrees to follow.

Fully one-third of Mexicans -40 million people- say that they would move to the U.S. if possible. 150 million people around the world say the same thing. Many of these people are poorer than Mexicans. Should they all be allowed to come? Is our country allowed to have any immigration law at all?

From a former Commissioner of US Customs and Border Protection Mr. Ralph Basham:

Building a physical fence along the entire border with Mexico was one of the dumbest ideas I heard when I was commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. It is critical to recognize that fencing (even with barbed wire, electrification, and possibly a moat filled with alligators) is not a solution, it is only a tool. There's a fundamental misunderstanding about what a physical barrier—even the triple-layer fencing in San Diego--actually does or doesn't do for the agency charged with building fencing and securing the border. All it really does is buy you time where a crosser could otherwise quickly escape or assimilate. None of the fencing is impenetrable. People will eventually dig under it or cut through it or go over it, but it gives you enough time to respond and apprehend them. Some fencing makes sense tactically in areas selected by the Border Patrol, as where we deployed some 700 miles of it under my tenure, and in many of those areas it has been a tool to provide permanent impedance to deter and slow illegal entries on foot or by vehicle.

[Read more about how the GOP is using the border fence issue for the 2012 election.]

As we learned, fencing in poor soil, flood plains or sand dunes can also be more expensive than effective, in some places because of terrain challenges we decided spending more than $6 million per mile for specialized fence was not the most effective use of resources to better secure that area of border and opted for more agents and technology there instead. In areas dozens of miles from paved roads where we have time to respond to incursions or where we have natural obstacles of mountains and water that already slow, deter or reroute traffic we don't need fence at all. Any successful strategy must rely more heavily on highly trained, dedicated law enforcement officers and better technology tools, key components of the approach we began in the last administration. Since 2001, we have more than doubled the Border Patrol, deployed highly capable manned aircraft and Unmanned Aerial Systems including the Predator aircraft, and installed fixed and mobile surveillance systems. And, the Department of Homeland Security is in the process of developing its plans to deploy additional technology capabilities along key areas of the border to enhance the effectiveness of these agents.

That strategy is working more than a fence alone would, the volume of illegal crossings on the Southwest border is down dramatically from a peak 1.6 million apprehensions in fiscal year 2000 to only about 350,000 apprehensions in 2011. While the threat of violence by drug organizations is real, average violent crime rates in cities along the U.S.-Mexico border are lower than in comparable cities elsewhere in the U.S. Despite the drug violence that has claimed thousands of lives in its sister city to the south, Ciudad Juárez, El Paso recorded only 5 murders in 2010.

As debate continues about how to best ensure our national security it is important to identify the real threats and develop realistic solutions. In the face of constrained budgets, spending billions on unnecessary fences is not viable. If the symbol of the fence in political campaigns keeps us talking about remaining border security challenges and new and creative approaches that will build on the progress to date then it's not all bad. But if it deceives the public into believing in 2,000 miles of wall as a magic solution to the hard problems of three decades of uncontrolled immigration, the only thing being fenced is our common sense.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

I am assuming you included corporate welfare in this statement to right?

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Stop saying I went bankrupt. I never went bankrupt but like many great business people have used the laws to corporate advantage—smart!</p>— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) <a href="https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/611934068050108416">June 19, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[NDgradstudent]

Your economic philosophy is pretty consistent with the one espoused by Trevelyan between 1845 to 1849. And that, in itself, is one of the primary reasons the ultra-conservative wing of the Republican party has little appeal to Hispanics, Blacks, Women, Young Adults, Asians, Labor, etc.

You can have open borders or a welfare state. As a matter of fact, you cannot have both. Bernie Sanders understands this.

I am assuming you included corporate welfare in this statement to right?

Certainly.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Building a physical fence along the entire border with Mexico was one of the dumbest ideas I heard when I was commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Who said that a fence was sufficient? That doesn't mean that it is not necessary. Prisons do not put an end to crime, but we still need them. They scare many people into not committing crimes. Similarly, a heavily guarded fence will deter many would-be lawbreakers from illegally entering the country. Obviously, the fact that our current President flatly refuses to enforce immigration law encourages people to come. Deporting the illegals currently here, as the law requires -rather than refusing to do so- would keep more people from coming.

Again, a border fence works for Israel. It is extraordinary that many of the same people who claim that we can install democracy is backward countries through military power and infrastructure expenditure also claim that we cannot build and enforce a fence along our own border. Invade the world and invite the world is not a viable long-term policy.

 

[Cackalacky]

Who said that a fence was sufficient? That doesn't mean that it is not necessary. Prisons do not put an end to crime, but we still need them. They scare many people into not committing crimes. Similarly, a heavily guarded fence will deter many would-be lawbreakers from illegally entering the country. Obviously, the fact that our current President flatly refuses to enforce immigration law encourages people to come. Deporting the illegals currently here, as the law requires -rather than refusing to do so- would keep more people from coming.

Again, a border fence works for Israel. It is extraordinary that many of the same people who claim that we can install democracy is backward countries through military power and infrastructure expenditure also claim that we cannot build and enforce a fence along our own border. Invade the world and invite the world is not a viable long-term policy.

Its not necessary, especially as illuminated by my post above. A 2,000 mile long heavily fortifed wall which can easily be undermined by tunnels or breached in other ways is an idiotic and ridiculously expensive commitment. Its also been shown that the physical wall is not effective at deterring crossings. BTW you posted "We need a heavily armed wall" and my rebuttal supported by quotes from the former Border Patrol Commisioner, says that a heavily armed 2000 mile long wall is dumb. If you did not mean that then you should clarify or add more nuance to your initial thoughts on the matter.

 

[Cackalacky]

A wall is a bad idea.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Its not necessary, especially as illuminated by my post above. A 2,000 mile long heavily fortifed wall which can easily be undermined by tunnels or breached in other ways is an idiotic and ridiculously expensive commitment. Its also been shown that the physical wall is not effective at deterring crossings. BTW you posted "We need a heavily armed wall" and my rebuttal supported by quotes from the former Border Patrol Commisioner, says that a heavily armed 2000 mile long wall is dumb. If you did not mean that then you should clarify or add more nuance to your initial thoughts on the matter.

As far as I could tell, the long piece you quoted from only established that a wall is not sufficient for border security, and I agree with that. The idea that a wall itself will not work is simply laughable, though, as I said.

Israel's border fence -which U.S. money helps pay for- works very well. I'm happy to combine a fence with armed guards all along it. People will not come if they actually fear capture and deportation. Why do you think illegal immigration increased after the 1986 amnesty? Why do you think illegals starting pouring over the border after the Senate approved the 2013 amnesty?

If you don't punish your child for stealing from the cookie jar he will do it again and again. Electrify the cookie jar and it's a different story.

A wall is a bad idea.

The Berlin wall was meant to keep people inside a nightmarish communist society. Our wall is meant to keep people out of a free prosperous society that might stop being so if we are overrun by immigrants. Big difference.

 

[Cackalacky]

A double steel fence with a 25-year life for 700 miles has been estimated to cost $49-billion. Not including security personnel, equipment, maintenance costs etc.

A little-noticed study the research service released in December notes that even the $49 billion does not include the expense of acquiring private land along hundreds of miles of border or the cost of labor if the job is done by private contractors -- both of which could drive the price billions of dollars higher.

The Congressional Research Service also questioned the effectiveness of a fence in preventing people from crossing the border illegally, especially if it does not span the entire 1,952-mile border. Secure fencing of some kind already exists along 106 miles of border, mostly in short stretches around cities.

Study: Price for border fence up to $49 billion Study says fence cost could reach $49 billion / Lawmakers' estimate falls far short of total, research service says - SFGate

 

[Cackalacky]

As far as I could tell, the long piece you quoted from only established that a wall is not sufficient for border security, and I agree with that. The idea that a wall itself will not work is simply laughable, though, as I said.

Israel's border fence -which U.S. money helps pay for- works very well. I'm happy to combine a fence with armed guards all along it. People will not come if they actually fear capture and deportation. Why do you think illegal immigration increased after the 1986 amnesty? Why do you think illegals starting pouring over the border after the Senate approved the 2013 amnesty?

If you don't punish your child for stealing from the cookie jar he will do it again and again. Electrify the cookie jar and it's a different story.




The Berlin wall was meant to keep people inside a nightmarish communist society. Our wall is meant to keep people out of a free prosperous society that might stop being so if we are overrun by immigrants. Big difference.

So you skipped the paragraph that talks about numerous locations that a fence can't be constructed or is less cost effective to do so because of environmental/geographic features. You must also have skipped the part that talks about the viability of a 2000 mile long fence. You must also have skipped the part about where other methods in locations without fences are more effective than a physical barrier. Not surprising. The scope of erecting, manning, funding and maintaining a 2000 mile fence is what is laughable.

Also the illegal immigrant population has stabilized over the last five years so they can't actually be pouring in as you claim.

Also the only difference in the Berlin Wall and your proposed wall is who is pointing the guns. People are still trying to escape into a free country from an impoverished and oppressive country.

 

[Bluto]

If anyone is interested.

Immigration | Pew Research Center

 

[EddytoNow]

As far as I could tell, the long piece you quoted from only established that a wall is not sufficient for border security, and I agree with that. The idea that a wall itself will not work is simply laughable, though, as I said.

Israel's border fence -which U.S. money helps pay for- works very well. I'm happy to combine a fence with armed guards all along it. People will not come if they actually fear capture and deportation. Why do you think illegal immigration increased after the 1986 amnesty? Why do you think illegals starting pouring over the border after the Senate approved the 2013 amnesty?

If you don't punish your child for stealing from the cookie jar he will do it again and again. Electrify the cookie jar and it's a different story.


The Berlin wall was meant to keep people inside a nightmarish communist society. Our wall is meant to keep people out of a free prosperous society that might stop being so if we are overrun by immigrants. Big difference.

I understand your thinking now. If I want to keep all the cookies to myself, I should build an electric fence around the cookie jar and stand guard over it 24 hours per day. Heaven help any child who gets hungry and tries to get a cookie. After I shoot a few of my children, the rest of them will never want a cookie again.

On second thought, I can just buy some more cookies with the money I save by not building a fence or by not arming myself against my own children. My children can then grow up to be wage-earning, tax-paying citizens who can afford to buy more cookies for their children.