Saturday, February 27, 2016

ON WALLS AND DONALD TRUMP

I heard 'him' when he said ... 'We're gonna build the Wall and Mexico is gonna pay for it' and today .... 'The Wall just got 10 foot higher' .... responding to former Mexican President Vincnte Fox's comment - 'We're not paying ... and he should know that'.

Walls are pretty useless things by themselves.   You can dig under them, fly over them or go round them.   They don't have a great track record witness the Berlin Wall and, given the fact there is already a fence in place (and how effective is that?), the reality is that a Wall, by itself, will not change the dynamic.    It is populist rhetoric by Trump designed to capture the votes from people seeking an easy answer to a complex problem.   Building a Wall is NOT the answer.

The reality is that 'Wetbacks' are a huge source of cheap labour to the US.   Unscrupulous employers right across the spectrum are prepared to turn a blind eye to 'illegals' and pay them under the table and minimal wages in an attempt to maximise profits.    That, coupled with the fact the a child born in the US to illegal immigrant parents is classified as a US citizen (by courtesy of the 14th Amendment designed protect the children of African slaves) and the rationale for a Wall as the answer to the problem is shot to pieces.

Want to solve the problem ... then address those two issues.   Therein is the answer.   To date, not too many takers.


31 comments:

Noel said...

We've never needed them. Once it was dawn raids.
Trumps turning into a standard politician at election time. Plenty of rhetoric and no substance.

The Veteran said...

Ok Noel ... I'll be generous. You can come back in but no more personal abuse pse.

Noel said...

Didn't do any like that as I told you.
I simply cut and pasted a comment made on your blog from someone who had the same name as you and you took it as a personal outing.

The Veteran said...

Noel ... it was your 'Goodbye Dipshit' remark that broke the camels back. Lets move on.

JC said...

Its a formidable problem because the Republican business establishment are perhaps the worst offenders on employing Wetbacks.. hence why Trump and Cruz are hated by the Party.. those two, especially Cruz is a real threat on the issue and particularly harsh on Crony Capitalism.

Agree it would be good to change the 14th Amendment but its already one of the most litigated amendments already and I suspect there would need to be a real groundswell from the public to force those compromised legislators to change it.

To be honest I think the Congress is too corrupt and incompetent to even consider it and the best you could get is a President prepared to make some sort of executive order on the matter.. something pertaining to security.

JC

Howie said...

Um yeah, you can't override the Constitution by Executive Order, even if you are Donald Trump and the Executive Order is discriminatory. Keep trying though, moron. You are actually correct about Congress, but that's because it's controlled by Republican nutters like that Canadian guy Raphael Cruz jr.

The Veteran said...

Gueez Howie ... so you're buying into Trump's 'birther' argument. How unlike you ... supporting Trump. Bit like me saying something nice about the Little fellow.

Educate me pse. How is it that a US Senator who sits in Congress as an Independent is campaigning to be the nominee of another Party. Still, I guess it's only a moot point. Come Tuesday Sanders will be consigned to the trash can of history leaving Hillary to fight the good fight (although campaigning from jail might be a tad difficult).

Howie said...

Come now Vet, it's a fact Cruz was born in Canada and only renounced his Canadian citizenship recently for political reasons. Whether he's constitutionally eligible to run for President is a legal question, but there were plenty of right-wingers prepared to argue that someone in his position isn't when the Obama birther nonsense was bouncing around the more bizarre parts of the Internet (like here).

And the far right have been having tumescent fantasies about jailing the Clintons for decades, this latest pipedream is just more of the same.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

I thought Howie had died.

Pity.

Howie said...

Speaking of bizarre birthers, I give you exhibit A above.

JC said...

"Um yeah, you can't override the Constitution by Executive Order, even if you are Donald Trump and the Executive Order is discriminatory."

You really don't have a clue, do you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order

Check the security directive link for an idea of the power of an executive order.

JC

Howie said...

Oh dear, JC is basing his learned legal opinion that it is possible for a President to flagrantly violate the 14th amendment via Executive Order without Congress or the SCOTUS having recourse on an extensive reading of a Wikipedia page. No wonder you're so scared of Obama, you think he's God.

The Veteran said...

Howie ... so where are you at on the substance of my post?

Howie said...

A wall is a retarded notion appealing to simpletons, which is why it appeals to Republicans and other racist RWNJs. The 14th amendment will not be repealed, and if it was it wouldn't really make much difference. Attacking employers? Possibly, but who's going to pay the massive costs? Gotta have someone to do the jobs Americans won't, so how about a humane and rational immigration policy? Too much to expect?

Angry Tory said...

osama bin kenya "override the constitution by executive order": and he overrode the Original, Unamended, Constitution.

Overriding completely idiotic interpretations of an amendment that the Founders, Framers would never have accepted, and that most reliable Constitutional Jurists today think is completely against the Constitution, well that is simple common sense.

JC said...

"Oh dear, JC is basing his learned legal opinion that it is possible for a President to flagrantly violate the 14th amendment via Executive Order without Congress or the SCOTUS having recourse on an extensive reading of a Wikipedia page."

Lets see an example. In October 2001 President George Bush proposed the Office of Homeland Security by executive order. Its survived 15 years so far (including immigration restrictions) and thus destroyed your notions on the Constitution and Presidential executive orders. Both Democratic and Republican Congresses with majorities plus the Supreme Court have not removed it because it isn't dependent on your limited knowledge of the Constitution and executive orders.

In other words, a president may make an executive order seemingly at odds with the Constitution but it will have the force of law until the Congress votes it down or the Supreme Court makes a contrary decision. But basically it depends on the American people.. if they like the order its likely to stick. The Homeland Security Act might be hated but it survives as so many other executive laws do because they either make sense or no-one has thought up a better idea.

JC

Howie said...

"In other words, a president may make an executive order seemingly at odds with the Constitution but it will have the force of law until the Congress votes it down or the Supreme Court makes a contrary decision. "

Well duh, read what I wrote. How else is it going to happen? God, you're a moron.

"But basically it depends on the American people.. if they like the order its likely to stick."

False. It has nothing to do with whether the American people "like" it. If any President tried to unambiguously and unilaterally override the 14th amendment by decree it would be struck down within minutes. Even Clarence Thomas would have doubts about affirming such an action.

JC said...

"Well duh, read what I wrote. How else is it going to happen?"

I read it.. you didn't have anything to say apart from you usual puerile insults.

"If any President tried to unambiguously and unilaterally override the 14th amendment by decree it would be struck down within minutes."

Ah.. hedging your bet now.. no one has advocated here to "unambiguously and unilaterally override the 14th amendment by decree".. thats just your little strawman to save face because you've finally realised the President *can* make an executive order that changes some aspect of the Constitution.. if it makes sense it'll be accepted, if not, then Congress might not give consent and the Supremes might either endorse it or throw it out.

JC


The Veteran said...

Howie ... your 'humane and rationale immigration policy' translates into an 'open boarders' policy.

If you had done your homework you would know the US has a humane and rationale immigration policy .... consider these numbers

US Immigration eligibility and quotas (source US State Dept Visa Bulletin Oct 2015)

Family-sponsored
IR Immediate relative (spouse, minor children, and parents) of US citizens. (A US citizen must be at least 21 years of age in order to sponsor his/her parents) ......
Unlimited numbers.

F1 Unmarried sons and daughters (21 years of age or older) of U.S. citizens ......
23,400

F2A Spouses and minor children (under 21 year old) of lawful permanent residents .....
87,934

F2B Unmarried sons and daughters (21 years of age or older) of permanent residents ... 26,266

F3 Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens ..... 23,400

F4 Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens ..... 65,000

Employment-based
EB-1 Priority workers. Three three sub-groups: 1. Foreign nationals with extraordinary ability in sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics; 2. Foreign nationals that are outstanding professors or researchers with at least three years experience in teaching or research and who are recognized internationally; 3. Foreign nationals that are managers and executives subject to international transfer to the United States ..... 41,455

EB-2 Professionals holding advanced degrees (Ph D, master's degree, or at least five years of progressive post-baccalaureate experience) or persons of exceptional ability in sciences, arts, or business ..... 41,455

EB-3 Skilled workers, professionals, and other workers ...... 41,455

EB-4 Certain special immigrants: eg current or former U.S. government workers ....
10,291

EB-5 Investors: Must invest a minimum of $1m (or $500,000 in a depressed or rural area) ..... 10,291

Diversity immigrants: From countries with historically low rates of immigration to the US ..... 50,000

Refugees ..... 70,000

By my maths that totals 458.390 per annum plus those in the IR category which is unlimited.

Seems to me the US had nothing to apologise on the immigration front and one can understand why the call for the boarders to be secured ... it's just that building a fence is a dumb solution.

You really need to get over your anti-US bias which, combined with your clear loathing of anyone with a differing political perspective from your own, must make for unhealthy living.

Howie said...

Wow, awesome numbers Vet! They're 100 times our size so take 10 times fewer migrants on a per capita basis, mighty impressive! And where do Mexican farm workers fit, given the demand for their services? Oh and what are "open boarders"? Flatmates that talk too much?

JC:

"no one has advocated here to "unambiguously and unilaterally override the 14th amendment by decree""

True you were being vague and imprecise by hinting at that. What exactly are you talking about, assuming you actually know?

"the President *can* make an executive order that changes some aspect of the Constitution"

Ah no. I suggest you actually read the Constitution (you'll find it on Wikipedia). It states clearly how it can be amended. Idiot.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

Illiterate Howie the dick thinks 'unlimited' equals less than NZ takes.

He also thinks there is such a concept as 'ten times less than.'

Well, if there is, it applies to the capacity of his brain.

The Veteran said...

Gueez Howie ... would have thought a man of your undoubted intellect could do basic maths. Clearly I wuz wrong .... US pop 318m, NZL pop 4.75m, 100x4.75 = $475m ... spot the diff ... duh.

As for the Wetback farm workers ... read my post. They are illegals attracted by employers who are prepared to turn a blind eye to their immigration status in return for paying them a pittance. Unemployment in the US equals 7.8m (Jan 16). Therein is the part answer coupled with going after employers who break the law and a rethink of the 14th Amendment.

My open boarders comment was in relation to your comment regarding the need for the US to have a humane and rationale policy. It is ... that's why I posted the numbers. Anything more and you are effectively giving up on the problem.

The Realist said...

The American public is far too conservative to vote Trump in if he wins the nomination.

Anonymous said...

Wetback?? It wont be long before it is Gringo, Gweilo, Roinek, Nigger, Munt, Kaffir, Honky and Pakeha used as an adjective not a noun.

BORDER, BORDER... Howie was trying to tell you something but you weren't listening.

Lord Egbut

The Veteran said...

Milord ... In my lexicon Wetback is a Noun.

I was listening very carefully to Howie ... seems to me he was arguing that 458k + an unlimited number of IR Immigrants is neither humane or rationale. I guess he was arguing amnesty for those who choose to break the law ... as it happens I disagree. Illegal immigrants (wherever) should be sent back from whence they came. They are queue jumpers and deserve no special treatment over those who choose to play by the rules. Unscrupulous employers too ... they should be subject to the full force of the law.

The US starts behind the 8 ball compared with the UK, Aust and NZL where there is at least a ditch to cross. Nevertheless all countries have a right to manage their borders (unless you're in the EU where rationality appears to have gone out the window).

Anonymous said...

Vet,
What are you doing wasting your time jousting with churls and 'foc's'l lawyers'.

If you say black they'll say white. The fact is - they're boring and bitter.

They'd be arseholes except they'd fail the medical.

Mick

Anonymous said...

None so blind that will not see. Read the posts, what Howie was trying to do, unsuccessfully and with a certain amount of humour, was to point out your misspelling of BORDER.

Wetback as you well know is derogatory and an insulting term for Mexicans and even Trump would not use it. This begs the question why do you?

Mick, as usual adds nothing to the sum of human knowledge, humour or interest.

Lord Egbut

The Veteran said...

Milord ... yep, he got me on the border bit but then undid it all with his shonky maths ... only out by a trifling 157,000,000 ... still, whats 157m between friends? I would far rather he debated the substance of the post and particularly what he means by a humane and rationale immigration policy (as opposed to parroting it like a slogan).

As for Wetback ... I use it as a Noun in its generally accepted sense ... 'Mexican living illegally in the US' Don't need to get precious about it.

Noel said...

Also generally accepted the term "wetback" is derogatory or contemptuous.

Noel said...

Sorry forgot
Extremely Disparaging and Offensive

The Veteran said...

Noel ... you might argue that you are entitled to be derogatory to people who break the law.