Board index ‹ Government and Politics

[Brownie]

Jim, do note that my initial comment references the "ethos and rhetoric" as xenophobic. By this, I mean that it is a spirit and message that fostered a xenophobic atmosphere.

To use an example, I was at work some years ago, and a coworkers made the statement, "Why can't they [as in blacks] take better care of their houses?" I commented on how the statement was racist. She got rather upset with me, and accused me of calling her a racist, and she loves black people. I tried to explain that I didn't call her a racist at all, but that her statement was racist, whether she intended it to be or not.

If I had to take a wild guess at Trump's actual stance, I think that he was willing to play to his base, and it is a bit more nuanced than the campaign trail indicated.

[Belle]

Mail Ox, you are right on most items, but not so much on the paying social security taxes part. They come in, from Mexico and other S. American countries as well as from overseas and many, not all, come here to cause trouble. When they work, they are most likely paid in cash and no taxes are withheld for them. The ones who come to cause trouble must be kept out and that's the purpose of the wall. That's the purpose of a border and a Border Patrol. Go take a walk into Mexico and see what happens.

Greg A Million, do you have a better suggestion than just saying "Don't build a wall"?

[Brownie]

Belle, you claim that "many" come to cause trouble. Do you have a reference for this, by chance? What percentage do you have in mind when you use the term "many"? Is there evidence that this border wall will reduce the number of this "many" in a significant way?

[Greg a Million]

Immigration process reform for one. Revamping how we deal with illegal immigrants rather than shipping them into ICE facilities for years. Best sources of statistics state that between 31% and 54% of illegal immigrants were originally in country legally to begin with. (Either by visa, or some other means). So 1/3 to 1/2 of the issue is completely unaffected by a wall from the beginning.
[See: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d0482.pdf,%20https://www.dhs.gov/.../publications/Ill_Report_1211.pdf,%20and%20http://www.politifact.com/.../rubio-says-40-percent.../]

The fact remains we have what appears to be a border fence through most of the easy-to-install areas. The bulk of the unsecured US/Mexico boarder is on the Rio Grande and for obvious reasons. The river is not straight, the ground is not easy to build on, and we have US citizens that live and depend on services on the river itself. So access through a wall to get to a home, or business needs to be provided.

Add in the fact that eminent domain is often abused.

Reform the processes that are failing. I am not saying it's easy. But building a wall serves what purpose exactly? It does not stop someone coming legally and overstaying their welcome. It won't stop the criminal element from using their resources to continue various criminal activity. At best it is a boondoggle designed to act as theater to give the American people an illusion of safety, much like the TSA in airports.

My ultimate point is this. No facts I have ever seen have proven the current fences and walls provide adequate security (and we have miles and miles of them). They are circumvented via tunnels, ladders, tools, and creative thinking. How does building a wall stop this? Why waste money on something that does not do anything?

Keep in mind I am not a Democrat. I am just against wasting good tax payer dollars on government programs that just grow without thought.

[jimwalton]

This is SUCH a problem—that the media is under such suspicion. It's where we get SO MUCH of our information. We can't be present at all these things, we have to trust objective reporting. BUT WE CAN'T TRUST them to be giving us OBJECTIVE REPORTING! So we choose media that we think maybe are reliable or that seem to maybe support what we think could be the truth... Sigh.

Frankly, it's what's behind the 9th Command: "You shall not give false testimony." A society that cannot rely on the truth from its media or in courts of law is in danger of unraveling at its very roots.

[Greg a Million]

I want to be explicit, I am not saying there is no value in mainstream media (I use it frequently, and yes I trust some of them more than others) but they are businesses. Businesses have their own motivations, and are made of people, and their bias will be part and parcel to their work. I know I am guilty of this, but there is a reason we have multiple news sources, and the fact that those sources have different agendas is actually to our benefit in allowing them to hold each other accountable. Just as I must treat my doctrines without such reverence that I believe them to be completely infallible; a challenge to my belief while it may be troubling serves only to strengthen my belief or reveal something else.

However I think that the modern blog style reporting is so infrequently held to task on their misrepresentations (on both sides of the isle) that they need to be taken and their ideas broken down and examined before treating them as some form of ideal view. Of course, some of this should likely be applied to all forms of media. But then we live in a society that has devalued critical thinking to a point that debate is next to moot over the crowds yelling their personal brand dogma. It also does not mean that a blog could not break a great story, but that is not something that grants them standing or credence by itself.

Critical thinking is essential. My statement about the efficacy of a wall has no bearing on my opinion on the state of the country as it pertains to current immigration law. Simply that I have no reason to believe a wall will impact our situation in any appreciable manner.

[Kyle]

The problem is not so much being skeptical of where you get your news it is allowing Trump and his administration to perpetuate their own set of facts that are objectively untrue. "The media" is also not a monolith. There are places for reliable reporting. The suspicion allows Trumps. alternate reality to flourish. We must police both and really do our due diligence to get reliable sources because we can't trust the White House either.

[jimwalton]

You can't possibly be claiming that all of the subjective reporting is in one camp. I'll just pretend I didn't hear you say that. We need to be more astute than that. Not meaning to offend you, Kyle, but there is all kinds of abuse all over the place.

[Kyle]

I am not saying that it all comes from one camp. I just bristle at the concept of one monolithic untrustworthy media because we are now dealing with a White House that consistently peddles in flagrant lies and the press can be a valuable check on that. There are many outlets that have played into and created the "crooked" media narrative but that does not mean the entire institution should be written off as a whole. I am advocating that we all be astute about this (as you mentioned) and take what information we have with however many grains of salt are necessary. There will be times the press will be unfair and the White House will be right but it will always be important to seek the truth, especially in this time of "alternative facts" and there are outlets that have a better track record than others in objective reporting and it is important to make that distinction. I am in no way offended and I thank you for providing a forum in which we can talk about these things. We really need it.

[jimwalton]

Thanks, Kyle. That makes a whole lot more sense. I agree that "the media is not a monolith." The problem is that there is enough corruption and bias that it's difficult to know whom to trust. Some media are more reliable than others, but who is in a position to rank them? We've all been fed misinformation and "alternate facts," but unfortunately we rank them by our own biases and perceptions rather than by any objective measure, and that's where the problem comes in. When we don't know whom to trust, we end up trusting those who report what's in agreement with our perspective, which is a dangerous course, both personally and for our collective dialogue.