Red Mosquito

tragabigzanda wrote:

jwfocker wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:For example, let's say there's a ban on US exports of baby formula to Syria; Aleppo may be exempt from that ban, so that those impacted by fighting can at least feed their infants. Again, just speculating.

Ah makes sense.

Nope, I was way off. From apsanlaw.com:

Sanctuary city is a name given to a city in the United States that follows certain procedures that shelters illegal immigrants. These procedures can be by law (de jure) or they can be by action (de facto). ... These cities normally do not permit police or municipal employees to inquire about one's immigration status.

Ugh. Totally against the federal government having the authority to look into citizens immigration status. Sounds like a state vs Federal issue and a ton of privacy issues.

Bi_3 wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote: TRUMP'S PLAN FOR JOBS AND TRADE
1. Renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement or withdraw from it
2. Withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

I don't remember you being protectionist. Or do you oppose those trade deals because they aren't remotely free trade?

I am not educated enough in the area to accurately judge either treaty, but technology has changed quite a bit since NAFTA was written, as has the overall global marketplaces in energy, manufacturing, and finance. I believe the right course of action is what Bernie said and to go back to the table to make sure our long term interests are still being supported by the agreement. The TPP on the other hand, is bad news all around.

So then totally free trade instead of all these bilateral/multilateral agreements masquerading as free trade? Except I know that's not what Bernie would want...

It'll be pretty damned impressive if he gets a constitutional amendment ratified in his first 100 days.

I used to be all about term limits in Congress but I've gone back on that. The obstructionism of the last 6 years or so has really soured me on the idea. I got sick of watching freshmen congressman come in (mostly tea partiers) and just grind the gears of governance to a stop. Say what you will about the corruption of the more entrenched legislators, but at least they know that you have to pass a budget.

I get the reasonings behind term limits, in that after people get entrenched in Congress they get more corrupt and focus less on their constituents. But before imposing term limits on them, I'd rather reform lobbying and campaign finance laws and see if that can help with the problem before we decide to throw out all the people who actually know what they're doing.

cutuphalfdead wrote:It'll be pretty damned impressive if he gets a constitutional amendment ratified in his first 100 days.

The federal courts could very well rule some of that stuff on his list unconstitutional within 100 days.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I used to be all about term limits in Congress but I've gone back on that. The obstructionism of the last 6 years or so has really soured me on the idea. I got sick of watching freshmen congressman come in (mostly tea partiers) and just grind the gears of governance to a stop. Say what you will about the corruption of the more entrenched legislators, but at least they know that you have to pass a budget.

I get the reasonings behind term limits, in that after people get entrenched in Congress they get more corrupt and focus less on their constituents. But before imposing term limits on them, I'd rather reform lobbying and campaign finance laws and see if that can help with the problem before we decide to throw out all the people who actually know what they're doing.

Term limits aren't effective anyway. There are enough ambitious politicians who share the same agenda that it just turns out to be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

jwfocker wrote:Ugh. Totally against the federal government having the authority to look into citizens immigration status. Sounds like a state vs Federal issue and a ton of privacy issues.

The question of granting citizenship is a difficult one for me, but the question of who should live and work in this country isn't. I fail to see any logical reason to restrict it that isn't somehow rooted in discrimination.

tragabigzanda wrote:

jwfocker wrote: Ugh. Totally against the federal government having the authority to look into citizens immigration status. Sounds like a state vs Federal issue and a ton of privacy issues.

That's not what is meant here. Sanctuary cities are essentially subverting federal immigration laws, usually without consent of their citizenry. In my area this is a big deal with regards to school funding where undocumented minors (and in many cases the legal citizen children of illegals) are filling classrooms and draining school budgets. Our school board refuses to release data on undocumented students, but similar sized counties show between a 25% to 40% higher per student per year cost. Since they are generally in already lower socio-economic areas, it's exacerbating the situation for the students who are already disadvantaged.

4/5 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote: TRUMP'S PLAN FOR JOBS AND TRADE
1. Renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement or withdraw from it
2. Withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

I don't remember you being protectionist. Or do you oppose those trade deals because they aren't remotely free trade?

I am not educated enough in the area to accurately judge either treaty, but technology has changed quite a bit since NAFTA was written, as has the overall global marketplaces in energy, manufacturing, and finance. I believe the right course of action is what Bernie said and to go back to the table to make sure our long term interests are still being supported by the agreement. The TPP on the other hand, is bad news all around.

So then totally free trade instead of all these bilateral/multilateral agreements masquerading as free trade? Except I know that's not what Bernie would want...

Smart regulations should always be the goal, but globalization is here to stay, so free trade is a given.

jwfocker wrote: Ugh. Totally against the federal government having the authority to look into citizens immigration status. Sounds like a state vs Federal issue and a ton of privacy issues.

Idk. Even if you're sympathetic to states' rights this is an issue that squarely belongs within the federal purview. After all it is the federal government that grants citizenship, Congress who legislates it, and the executive branch that enforces it.

Aren't states only able to indirectly look into citizenship issues, IE, it can't be the reason a person is detained, but once a person has been detained the state then can look into the person's immigration status?

Green Habit wrote:[Term limits aren't effective anyway. There are enough ambitious politicians who share the same agenda that it just turns out to be "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".

But...but throw the bums out!

Bi_3 wrote: Smart regulations should always be the goal, but globalization is here to stay, so free trade is a given.

I guess what I come back to is that even though those agreements aren't close to perfect, and as long as the US insists on being so protectionist they never will be, I think they are better than ripping them up, especially by someone like Trump who has been very consistent in promoting his total misunderstanding of trade and desire to bring back jobs that have no business coming back to this country. So I am fairly convinced that anything he would attempt to do in place of those agreements would be far worse and negatively impact both this nation and other nations. I suppose if a supporter of free trade were talking about getting rid of them I'd be more open to it because what they'd do instead would be an improvement; what Trump would (want) do regarding international trade would be an unmitigated disaster in my opinion.

theplatypus wrote:He doesn't want to say

It's the principal of it.

4/5 wrote:

jwfocker wrote: Ugh. Totally against the federal government having the authority to look into citizens immigration status. Sounds like a state vs Federal issue and a ton of privacy issues.

Idk. Even if you're sympathetic to states' rights this is an issue that squarely belongs within the federal purview. After all it is the federal government that grants citizenship, Congress who legislates it, and the executive branch that enforces it.

Aren't states only able to indirectly look into citizenship issues, IE, it can't be the reason a person is detained, but once a person has been detained the state then can look into the person's immigration status?

I'm more concerned with the Feds having more authority and power on deciding a individuals citizenship after the fact. I was just having a worst case scenario run through my mind.

spike wrote:

theplatypus wrote:He doesn't want to say

It's the principal of it.

It's your right as an American not to.

Bi_3 wrote:tragabigzanda wrote:

jwfocker wrote: Ugh. Totally against the federal government having the authority to look into citizens immigration status. Sounds like a state vs Federal issue and a ton of privacy issues.

That's not what is meant here. Sanctuary cities are essentially subverting federal immigration laws, usually without consent of their citizenry. In my area this is a big deal with regards to school funding where undocumented minors (and in many cases the legal citizen children of illegals) are filling classrooms and draining school budgets. Our school board refuses to release data on undocumented students, but similar sized counties show between a 25% to 40% higher per student per year cost. Since they are generally in already lower socio-economic areas, it's exacerbating the situation for the students who are already disadvantaged.

4/5 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

4/5 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote: TRUMP'S PLAN FOR JOBS AND TRADE
1. Renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement or withdraw from it
2. Withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

I don't remember you being protectionist. Or do you oppose those trade deals because they aren't remotely free trade?

I am not educated enough in the area to accurately judge either treaty, but technology has changed quite a bit since NAFTA was written, as has the overall global marketplaces in energy, manufacturing, and finance. I believe the right course of action is what Bernie said and to go back to the table to make sure our long term interests are still being supported by the agreement. The TPP on the other hand, is bad news all around.

So then totally free trade instead of all these bilateral/multilateral agreements masquerading as free trade? Except I know that's not what Bernie would want...

Smart regulations should always be the goal, but globalization is here to stay, so free trade is a given.

I know it wasn't what was being said I was looking at it as a tool that could be used for something else.

Poor, illegal immigrants in low income areas is a fact of the modern world. You can make as many laws as you want and enable the government to invade their privacy which means the government will invade our privacy as well but it's a losing battle. I just kind of see it as the drug war all over again. It is what it is. We'll disagree.

4/5 wrote:

Bi_3 wrote: Smart regulations should always be the goal, but globalization is here to stay, so free trade is a given.

I guess what I come back to is that even though those agreements aren't close to perfect, and as long as the US insists on being so protectionist they never will be, I think they are better than ripping them up, especially by someone like Trump who has been very consistent in promoting his total misunderstanding of trade and desire to bring back jobs that have no business coming back to this country. So I am fairly convinced that anything he would attempt to do in place of those agreements would be far worse and negatively impact both this nation and other nations. I suppose if a supporter of free trade were talking about getting rid of them I'd be more open to it because what they'd do instead would be an improvement; what Trump would (want) do regarding international trade would be an unmitigated disaster in my opinion.

I agree with you on most of this, it appears he has no understanding of even 101-level economics or maybe just an inability to communicate it, but Trump would no more be the author of those agreements than Obama is the author of the ACA, and it would be a mistake to oppose something just because he supports it (not that you are implying that).

tragabigzanda wrote: Hey, that's not my quote!

Classic Trag.

Heh yeah "remove two regulations for every new one" made me laugh. And good luck convincing Congress to have term limits when most of Congress despises you.

Near total nonsense.