I have said immigration is a red herring, but have never advocated for unpatrolled borders as trafficking is an issue. However, if the country is hell bent on cracking down on illegal immigration, we do it within our borders not someone else's.
What a crock that is. We have the right to use our influence in the world in any way that helps to benefit Americans, especially when it is legal. We may try to control human trafficking at out borders- for example- or we may punish that country right in their sorry arse shit-hole country if they are facilitating it. In any case, those tariffs are an "at the border" remedy.
Like I I've said multiple times, I don't consider illegal immigration an issue by the numbers, so the old guard was working fine (if not broke, why fix it?). Trafficking could be reduced by legalizing some drugs, or all drugs (like Portugal), I'm sure a "libertarian" such as yourself would appreciate such move. Of course boots on the ground to stem gun running and sex trafficking would still be needed.
You would need to establish that he agrees with the premise of the question before proceeding. As far as I can tell he belongs to the "no person is illegal" camp, so you are asking him how he would cure something that he does not think is an illness. He is perhaps better prepared to answer how he would solve that problem of not letting illegals in.
Understood. But if you don't agree that a problem exists, your criticism on the way someone is addressing a problem is rather invalid. You can criticize that Trump is trying to address a problem that you don't believe is a problem, but you really can't go around saying it is OUR job to address a problem you don't even agree with in the first place. eh?
The premise of this thread is, if I understand correctly, Here4money going off on Trump for using a tariff to correct a problem that he (H4M) says is our responsibility to correct. Meaning Trump shouldn't be telling Mexico to solve the immigration problem. However, H4M doesn't agree that there is a problem in the first place, so its rather ridiculous to suggest the US should address the problem.
That's pretty ridiculous. If I don't agree my tax payer dollars should go into wasteful spending, I don't get a say in it? Contractor: you need a new roof with your remodel. Me: I don't need a roof. Contractor: you don't get a say Like wise if I don't agree a problem exists, I don't get a say in how it passes off our trading partners or how the tariffs affect my imports? Contractor: we gotta bulldoze your neighbors living room Me: why, there's no need and it's gonna hurt my property value. Contractor: you don't get a say
Its not ridiculous at all. If you don't need a roof, you don't hire the contractor. In the second example, you don't get a say. If the neighbor wants to bulldoze his living room, and you don't like it, tough. Another bad example. You can always state your opinion (and you do). That's no what I'm talking about here. I just think its pretty ridiculous that you're suggesting it is OUR responsibility to fix the border issue, not Mexico, while at the same time stating that there is NO border issue. Seems rather silly.