The wall

[billvon 2,435]

9 hours ago, Coreece said:

What I find most appalling about the article is that they dig up all this info on sex trafficking just to "prove" Trump wrong, without offering any solutions.

 

?? Reporters report on facts.  Especially when politicians are pushing lies.  That's one of the most important functions of journalism.  "Offering solutions" - that's what editorials are for.

Quote

And what it pretty much comes down to is that people don't really care.  Nobody gives a shit.  Most of us haven't dealt with, or directly experienced human trafficking, gun crimes, abortions, drug gangs, Mexican/S.A humanitarian crises, etc. . .

About 10 years ago I was driving back from Eloy.   I was almost to the big climb out of Ocotillo when I saw three guys next to a broken down car, waving people down.  It was really hot so I stopped to offer them a ride, or to let them call a tow truck.

As I slowed to a stop I realized the car was burned out and likely hadn't driven in months.  I stopped anyway and asked the guys if they were OK.  They didn't speak much english but they had enough to ask me for a ride.  I was torn, because I didn't know if I wanted to drive them anywhere, and the Border Patrol was out in force that day.  On the other hand I wasn't going to leave them in the desert with no help.  I ended up giving them all the leftover food and water I had from the Eloy trip and telling them good luck.

As I got to the top of the hill the Border Patrol had set up a checkpoint, so they wouldn't have gotten far anyway.  But they might have ended up in better shape overall.

That scenario plays out a thousand times a year in that area.  What would you have done?

[billvon 2,435]

This is awkward.

Trump is about to give a rally for his wall in El Paso.  El Paso county just made a statement on his claims, including:

-Trump has "disseminated false information to local elected officials across the nation regarding its perceived need for border security funding priorities, including calling life on the U.S.-Mexico border a ‘crisis situation . . . .Data from Customs and Border Protection (CBP) illustrates that no such crisis exists.”

-Trump “falsely stated that El Paso was one of the most dangerous cities in the United States until the construction of border fencing, yet another lie that was quickly disputed by residents and members of our local law enforcement agencies. El Paso’s violent crime rate dropped 62 percent from its peak in 1993 to 2007, a year before construction on the fence began.”

-The County Commission is “disillusioned by President Trump’s lies regarding the border and our community, and though it is difficult to welcome him to El Paso while he continues to proliferate such untruths, we do welcome him to meet with local officials to become properly informed about our great and safe region.”

There's going to have to be some very rapid alternative-fact tweeting to spin this until it's politically correct.

[jakee 1,262]

59 minutes ago, billvon said:

-Trump “falsely stated that El Paso was one of the most dangerous cities in the United States until the construction of border fencing, yet another lie that was quickly disputed by residents and members of our local law enforcement agencies. El Paso’s violent crime rate dropped 62 percent from its peak in 1993 to 2007, a year before construction on the fence began.”

 

There's going to have to be some very rapid alternative-fact tweeting to spin this until it's politically correct.

Well, statistics can say a lot of things. Some people are saying the crime rate has risen 62 percent. A lot of people are saying that. I've heard numbers as high as 100, 200, even a 300% rise in crime! That's just what I've heard, folks.

[wmw999 2,153]

El Paso has regularly been one of the safest large-ish cities in the country, in part maybe because it has a relatively high level of lithium in the water. First I heard of it was in the 1970’s, when it was reported in Time. The two facts (lower crime rate, lithium) don’t have a proven causal relationship, but it’s a consistent correlation.  

Wendy P.  

[billvon 2,435]

15 hours ago, wmw999 said:

El Paso has regularly been one of the safest large-ish cities in the country, in part maybe because it has a relatively high level of lithium in the water.

I sense a solution to violence at Trump rallies!  Sell "wall water" fortified with lithium, with all the proceeds going to the wall (after deducting any medical expenses incurred by journalists who are injured by Trump supporters.)

Meanwhile, remember how Trump's #1 priority was the wall?  Congressional leaders reached a deal that includes about $1 billion in border security spending.  No wall, but up to 55 miles of fences.  Where was Trump?  From CNN:

=============

President Donald Trump kicked off the 2020 campaign season Monday in the border city of El Paso, Texas, just as negotiators on Capitol Hill appeared to have reached a deal to keep the government fully open past Friday's deadline.

Trump largely demurred on weighing in on the deal's emerging details, telling the raucous crowd he had skipped being briefed on it . . .

===========

[yoink 321]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

 

Trump largely demurred on weighing in on the deal's emerging details, telling the raucous crowd he had skipped being briefed on it . . .

 

President of the US chooses not to be involved in discussions over the sole point that kept nearly a million people without paychecks last month, but prioritizes public rallies.

 

Awesome.

 

Just goes to show that Trump's much more interested in the fame than the hard work of governance.

Edited February 12, 2019 by yoink

[billvon 2,435]

So after skipping the meeting on the wall to go campaigning, Trump is now complaining that he doesn't like the bipartisan agreement that came out of it.  On the plus side, he is proud of shutting down the government the last time, and he says he never claimed otherwise.  But if he doesn't like this deal and he shuts the government down it will be the democrat's fault.

=============

“Am I happy at first glance? The answer is no, I’m not, I’m not happy. It’s not going to do the trick, but I’m adding things to it and when you add whatever I have to add, it’s all going to happen where we’re going to build a beautiful big strong wall . . . I don’t think you’re going to see a shutdown. I wouldn’t want to see a shutdown. If you did have it, it’s the Democrats fault. And I accepted the first one, and I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished because people learned during that shutdown all about the problems coming in from the southern border. I accept it. I’ve always accepted it. But this one, I would never accept it if it happens.”

==============

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-wont-commit-to-congress-border-deal-to-avert-shutdown/2019/02/12/16275638-2ed9-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html?utm_term=.efc84a8d0bfc

[Stumpy 256]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

So after skipping the meeting on the wall to go campaigning, Trump is now complaining that he doesn't like the bipartisan agreement that came out of it.  On the plus side, he is proud of shutting down the government the last time, and he says he never claimed otherwise.  But if he doesn't like this deal and he shuts the government down it will be the democrat's fault.

=============

“Am I happy at first glance? The answer is no, I’m not, I’m not happy. It’s not going to do the trick, but I’m adding things to it and when you add whatever I have to add, it’s all going to happen where we’re going to build a beautiful big strong wall . . . I don’t think you’re going to see a shutdown. I wouldn’t want to see a shutdown. If you did have it, it’s the Democrats fault. And I accepted the first one, and I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished because people learned during that shutdown all about the problems coming in from the southern border. I accept it. I’ve always accepted it. But this one, I would never accept it if it happens.”

==============

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-wont-commit-to-congress-border-deal-to-avert-shutdown/2019/02/12/16275638-2ed9-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html?utm_term=.efc84a8d0bfc

The logical hoops his supporters have to jump through even just to agree with him boggle the mind.....

[rushmc 18]

7 hours ago, billvon said:

So after skipping the meeting on the wall to go campaigning, Trump is now complaining that he doesn't like the bipartisan agreement that came out of it.  On the plus side, he is proud of shutting down the government the last time, and he says he never claimed otherwise.  But if he doesn't like this deal and he shuts the government down it will be the democrat's fault.

=============

“Am I happy at first glance? The answer is no, I’m not, I’m not happy. It’s not going to do the trick, but I’m adding things to it and when you add whatever I have to add, it’s all going to happen where we’re going to build a beautiful big strong wall . . . I don’t think you’re going to see a shutdown. I wouldn’t want to see a shutdown. If you did have it, it’s the Democrats fault. And I accepted the first one, and I’m proud of what we’ve accomplished because people learned during that shutdown all about the problems coming in from the southern border. I accept it. I’ve always accepted it. But this one, I would never accept it if it happens.”

==============

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-wont-commit-to-congress-border-deal-to-avert-shutdown/2019/02/12/16275638-2ed9-11e9-813a-0ab2f17e305b_story.html?utm_term=.efc84a8d0bfc

 So the walls going to get built. Good! 

[yoink 321]

7 minutes ago, rushmc said:

 So the walls going to get built. Good! 

Want to bet?

 

To be clearer, I’m sure something will get built to assuage Trumps ‘win’, despite it not being what he promised, or for the cost he promised, or effective.

It won’t be ‘The Wall(tm)’.

Edited February 13, 2019 by yoink

[billvon 2,435]

1 hour ago, rushmc said:

 So the walls going to get built. Good! 

It's already being built, per Trump, and Mexico is going to pay for it, again per Trump.  And it's going to pay for itself anyway, per Trump.  So he doesn't need the money from Congress.  Why have a shutdown over money he doesn't need?  It's insane.

[ryoder 1,401]

Ted Cruz now has the idea of making one Mexican pay for it: https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/429666-ted-cruz-wants-to-make-el-chapo-pay-for-border-trumps-border-wall

[wolfriverjoe 1,354]

Gotta love how he's gone from 'Build the wall!" to "FINISH the wall!"

 

Really. 

Understand that he is now taking credit for 'fence repairs', on border barriers that were built under both GWB & Obama. 

 

And his idiot supporters just keep on believing this crap.
LA Times story:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-wall-shift-20190212-story.html

 

Both Jimmy Kimmel & Trevor Noah have skewered it pretty good too.

[Coreece 190]

On 2/11/2019 at 4:47 AM, jakee said:

Do you think it's appalling that Trump is pushing all that false info just to 'prove' himself right, without offering any solutions?

I think Trump's field of view on this issue is about as narrow as the Wapo article, and while I strongly disagree with his airplane comment, I'm not so quick to dismiss everything he said  just because wapo wants to cherry-pick data for the sole purpose of giving him 4 Pinocchios.  There are plenty of other ways to do that without minimizing this issue.  And yes, saying that trafficking by airplane is nearly impossible also minimizes the issue and undermines the efforts of those actually dealing with it.

I didn't necessarily have a problem with Wapo overall, but they have a history of downplaying sex trafficking in The U.S for whatever reason.    In the article, they talked about the 230 prosecutions by the DOJ and then went out of their to say that that was wan 18% decline from the year before as if it wasn't as serious.  They deliberately left out the part that there were still more people linked to those prosecutions that were charged and convicted.  In fact, the DOJ link that they referenced specifically said it was a record year and that they saw a  75 % increase in defendants charged and a 106% increase in convictions.

They also left out the part of that link talking about an additional 649 human trafficking cases and 2453 arrests initiated by the FBI.  In addition to that, there were still at least a 1000+  investigations going on and 7000+ sex trafficking reports.  The most reports came from Texas and California.

Wapo said that you had to dig far to find many cases involving the southern border, but right there on the same DOJ page that they referenced, it showed the convictions of illegals  from the Rendon-Reyes Sex Trafficking Organization just last month.  It talked about how they trafficked numerous women across the border for about 10 years.  Some were as young as 14.  One woman was even abducted along with her baby.  But wapo completely ignores that one and moves on to the Thai trafficking conviction  because it had nothing to do with the border.

 

[Coreece 190]

On 2/11/2019 at 6:00 AM, kallend said:

They DID their part - accurate reporting of the facts.  

Mere paltering.

 

On 2/11/2019 at 6:00 AM, kallend said:

There can be no solution if the information provided by the administration is a pack of lies.

Hard to implement a solution if people like El Wapo continually downplay the severity of the Mexican sex trade into the U.S.  I suppose that's what executive orders are for.

 

[Coreece 190]

On 2/11/2019 at 11:33 AM, billvon said:

?? Reporters report on facts.  Especially when politicians are pushing lies.  That's one of the most important functions of journalism.

That's fine, but is the part about smuggling/trafficking thousands of women over an open border into the sex/labor trade really a lie?

Much of the Wapo article was based only on those that were identified as victims and traffickers that got caught.

The IOM stats said that while "79% of international trafficking journeys go through official border points,"  cases of sexual exploitation were more likely to travel through unofficial routes: “Sexual exploitation makes up 15 percent of official border crossings and 22 percent of nonofficial border crossings."  

So there's clearly a problem with both choices of entry and they should be handled properly.  I think the fact that the majority are coming through official border points gives us a bit more control in the matter, so any security measures that funnel traffickers to official border points would be ideal.

Executive Order 13773  signed a couple years ago was designed to offer more resources to identify these traffickers, especially at official border crossings.  It's also important to distinguish between smuggling and trafficking and to identity victims as victims so they get additional protections under the law.

Another important aspect of of this is to "maximize the extent to which all Federal agencies share information and develop strategies, under the guidance of the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, to maximize coordination among agencies."  This coordination of information was also extended to foreign governments as well.

I think the idea here is to get more reliable information to identify problematic areas and obtain more accurate figures on victims.

 

[billvon 2,435]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

Mere paltering.

Paltering is the opposite of facts.  Are you of the opinion "truth isn't truth" like many right wingers these days?

Quote

Hard to implement a solution if people like El Wapo continually downplay the severity of the Mexican sex trade into the U.S.

They're not downplaying it.  They are pointing out that Trump is lying about it.  Those are not the same things.

Let's say someone here says "a trillion babies get aborted every year in the US!  It's an OUTRAGE!" You then point out that it's not a trillion.  Are you downplaying the abortion issue?

Quote

That's fine, but is the part about smuggling/trafficking thousands of women over an open border into the sex/labor trade really a lie?

Yes.

1) We don't have an open border.

2) The vast majority of sex and labor trafficking happens through existing border crossings; a wall will do nothing to stop that.

3) And of those the vast majority are labor (illegal workers.)  They generally don't cross the border between entry points.  They cross AT entry points with fake documentation, then go to work for people like Trump who shelter them and help them avoid arrest.

To be more specific, these are lies:

"Human traffickers and sex traffickers take advantage of the wide-open areas between our ports of entry to smuggle thousands of young girls and women into the United States and to sell them into prostitution and modern-day slavery."  No, it's not the 'wide-open areas between the ports of entry' - it IS the ports of entry.  Per the UN International Organization on Migration, about 30% of them come in via trains, 30% via buses, and 20% via airplane. 

"Women are tied up, they’re bound, duct tape put around their faces, around their mouths, in many cases they can’t even breathe. They’re put in the backs of cars or vans or trucks.” - Nope.  No one has seen this.  In fact, right after he said this, the Border Patrol put out a somewhat panicked email to all its agents saying "if ANYONE has seen this, please let us know immediately!"  Of all the cases that the US prosecuted over the past few years, the only one that even mentions duct tape and trafficking occurred well after the person arrived in the US.

"Human trafficking by airplane is almost impossible."  Nope.  20% of illegal workers come in via airplane.

That's not to say there isn't a problem with sex and labor trafficking, of course.  But his constant lies about it mean that the issue isn't being handled.  Instead of trying to fund solutions to this problem, he's trying to get money for a useless wall by lying about the issue.  And it is absolutely the job of journalists to call him on that.

Quote

I think the idea here is to get more reliable information to identify problematic areas and obtain more accurate figures on victims

That would be great.  But that won't happen until Trump stops pushing his inaccurate figures on victims.

 

[BillyVance 34]

16 hours ago, rushmc said:

 So the walls going to get built. Good! 

It's a start. Pelosi for a long time stated she would not give Trump more than a dollar for the wall... Now the potential deal is $1.375 Billion. I'd sign it if I were him. Extend the existing walls out.

We already spend what, $100 Billion a year, or more on food, healthcare and assistance to illegal aliens. It's ridiculous. They overload and abuse our system. I say get the wall built. Force immigrants through border checkpoints so they can be properly vetted.

Trump already has options to reallocate funds from other budgets to get the wall funded if the deal doesn't give him enough.

[JerryBaumchen 1,068]

14 minutes ago, BillyVance said:

to get the wall funded

Hi BV,

So could you tell us just what happened to, 'I'll get Mexico to pay for it.'?

Curious minds want to know,

Jerry Baumchen

[BillyVance 34]

7 minutes ago, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi BV,

So could you tell us just what happened to, 'I'll get Mexico to pay for it.'?

Curious minds want to know,

Jerry Baumchen

That's up to Trump. Not me.

[billvon 2,435]

33 minutes ago, BillyVance said:

It's a start. Pelosi for a long time stated she would not give Trump more than a dollar for the wall... Now the potential deal is $1.375 Billion. I'd sign it if I were him. Extend the existing walls out.

We already spend what, $100 Billion a year, or more on food, healthcare and assistance to illegal aliens. It's ridiculous. They overload and abuse our system. I say get the wall built. Force immigrants through border checkpoints so they can be properly vetted.

Trump already has options to reallocate funds from other budgets to get the wall funded if the deal doesn't give him enough.

It's less than Pelosi offered him the first time, and it can only be used for 55 miles of fencing (not a wall.)  Good; less wasted money.

Quote

I say get the wall built. Force immigrants through border checkpoints so they can be properly vetted.

Most illegal aliens come through border checkpoints already.  They forge documents and come through legally - then go work for people like Trump who help them stay here.

Quote

Trump already has options to reallocate funds from other budgets to get the wall funded if the deal doesn't give him enough.

I look forward to that.  The House will immediately shut him down.  The Senate will then be forced into the position to either 1) vote to allow it (and pay the price for hypocrisy come election time) or 2) reject it (and deny Trump his wall again.)

[Coreece 190]

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Paltering is the opposite of facts.  Are you of the opinion "truth isn't truth" like many right wingers these days?

Paltering is using truth or facts to deceive people.

As I've already mentioned in my reply to Jakee, one way that wapo attempted to do this was by saying the DOJ only prosecuted 230 cases and that that was an 18% decline from the year before.  But they left out the part about how there were still more people charged in connection to those prosecutions.  They actually saw a 75% increase in the number of people charged and 106% increase in the number of convictions.  So that 18% number is meaningless and doesn't accurately represent the truth behind the numbers.

And they deliberately went out of their way to get that number because the DOJ page where they sourced that info didn't say anything about an 18% decline, but it specifically stated the 75% increase in those charged and the 106% increase in those convicted.

And I'm sorry for having to repeat myself but they also ignored all the FBI cases and the 1200+ arrests and all the other 1000+ investigations that were going on, and the 7000+ reports on trafficking.  And those are just the ones we know about.

There's more on that in my reply here.

 

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Quote

Hard to implement a solution if people like El Wapo continually downplay the severity of the Mexican sex trade into the U.S.

They're not downplaying it.

Yes they are, and I already described how they are doing that.

 

2 hours ago, billvon said:

They are pointing out that Trump is lying about it.

Yes, they are doing that as well.  

But let's face, with Trump it's probably more of a case of Hanlon's Razor.

 

2 hours ago, billvon said:

Quote

That's fine, but is the part about smuggling/trafficking thousands of women over an open border into the sex/labor trade really a lie?

Yes.

1) We don't have an open border.

Fine, I meant "unofficial border points," but I think you already knew that.

 

2 hours ago, billvon said:

2) The vast majority of sex and labor trafficking happens through existing border crossings; a wall will do nothing to stop that.

Yes, I've already addressed that.  Please stop talking past me.  Additional security might funnel more traffickers to those official border crossings where we would have more control over the issue and will now have more resources to identify  trafficking in part by the executive order that I mentioned earlier.

 

2 hours ago, billvon said:

"Human traffickers and sex traffickers take advantage of the wide-open areas between our ports of entry to smuggle thousands of young girls and women into the United States and to sell them into prostitution and modern-day slavery."  No, it's not the 'wide-open areas between the ports of entry' - it IS the ports of entry.  Per the UN International Organization on Migration, about 30% of them come in via trains, 30% via buses, and 20% via airplane.  

Right so about 80% are coming in through official border points as I've already referenced.  So what about the ones coming in through unofficial border points like "wide-open areas between ports of entry?"  It's seems like you're completely ignoring that issue.

The IOM also stated that “Sexual exploitation makes up 15 percent of official border crossings and 22 percent of nonofficial border crossings."   
The problem is that it's hard to gauge what that number actually is for a variety of reasons.  There is confusion about smuggling vs trafficking and the number of women that are then trafficked after being smuggled in.  Due to the covert nature of the business, victims are hidden and hard to identify.   Even when they're found, many aren't identified as victims. Most women are are extremely fearful of not only their traffickers but also the authorities and many cases go unreported.

Many researches and government agencies have tried using estimation models but those numbers are still considered unreliable and tend to be quite high.  The 10,000-20,000 numbers we hear are probably overkill and somewhat based on numbers in other countries.  But given the cartel's motivation and the sheer number of migrants involved in the border crises, I don't think several thousand is a stretch.

But again, hopefully that executive order will help with the coordination of info between agencies and other countries so we can get more reliable numbers and effective solutions.

 

2 hours ago, billvon said:

That's not to say there isn't a problem with sex and labor trafficking, of course.  But his constant lies about it mean that the issue isn't being handled.  Instead of trying to fund solutions to this problem, he's trying to get money for a useless wall by lying about the issue.  And it is absolutely the job of journalists to call him on that

I think a 50-70 ft conctrete wall is a bit of overkill as well, but if additional security and a few more barriers in problematic areas will help in some of the ways I've mentioned above, then I don't think democrats will have a problem.  And it looks like that is what's going to happen.

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,354]

1 hour ago, BillyVance said:

...We already spend what, $100 Billion a year, or more on food, healthcare and assistance to illegal aliens. It's ridiculous. They overload and abuse our system...

 

$100 Billion? Really? 

Got any proof of that?

 

Illegals aren't eligible for welfare. Or SNAP benefits. Some states allow them to obtain WIC (women, infants & children) food assistance. 
They can get emergency care at hospitals, then skip out on the bill (citizens can and do this too).

They can get educated at public schools.

 

But the idea that illegals can come here and get all sorts of welfare, food, housing and other assistance is blatantly false. 

[SkyDekker 1,147]

23 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Paltering is using truth or facts to deceive people.

Paltering is being deceitful. Using truth or facts isn't part of the definition.

[Phil1111 918]

21 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Paltering is using truth or facts to deceive people....

I think a 50-70 ft conctrete wall is a bit of overkill as well, but if additional security and a few more barriers in problematic areas will help in some of the ways I've mentioned above, then I don't think democrats will have a problem.  And it looks like that is what's going to happen.

 

There is so much in this post that it could be a definition for paltering in itself. It in fact means half-truths to deceive.

"The result? Participants who faced the choice of either paltering or telling the truth misled the buyer more often (71%) than those who faced the choice of either lying outright or telling the truth (55%), even if this came at a cost.

Here is an interesting fact that explains why people prefer paltering over telling outright lies: It allows them to maintain an image of themselves as honest and trustworthy individuals (after all, their paltering was truthful). We all care about being good people and being seen by others as such. In fact, when it comes to honesty, we generally believe we are better than others."

This is where trump comes in.:

"Another recent example is Trump’s response in the September 26 presidential debate to a question about a federal lawsuit that charged his family’s company with housing discrimination. His answer was: “When I was really young, I went into my father’s company. We, along with many, many, many other companies, throughout the country — it was a federal lawsuit — were sued. We settled the suit with zero — no admission of guilt. It was very easy to do. But they sued many people.”

While it’s true that the Trumps did not admit guilt in the consent decree, a New York Times investigation suggests that the admission did not mean that they were innocent. Though Trump was young (27 years old), he was the company’s president. And though there may have been other firms sued at other times, the Trumps were the only one sued at that particular time."