Why Don't the Liberals Want a Wall?

musterion

musterion

Well-known member
WizardofOz said:

The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) went a step further and affirmed the authority of New London, Connecticut, to take non-blighted private property by eminent domain, and then transfer it for a dollar a year to a private developer solely for the purpose of increasing municipal revenues. This 5–4 decision received heavy press coverage and inspired a public outcry criticizing eminent domain powers as too broad. In reaction to Kelo, several states enacted or are considering state legislation that would further define and restrict the power of eminent domain. The Supreme Courts of Illinois, Michigan (County of Wayne v. Hathcock [2004]), Ohio (Norwood, Ohio v. Horney [2006]), Oklahoma, and South Carolina have recently ruled to disallow such takings under their state constitutions.

The redevelopment in New London, the subject of the Kelo decision, proved to be a failure and as of ten years after the court's decision nothing was built on the taken land in spite of the expenditure of over $100 million in public funds. The Pfizer corporation, which owned a $300 million research facility in the area, and would have been the primary beneficiary of the additional development, announced in 2009 that it would close its facility, and did so shortly before the expiration of its 10-year tax abatement agreement with the city.[14] The facility was subsequently purchased in 2010 for just $55 million by General Dynamics Electric Boat.



I guess it didn't go so well for New London...did it?

And this case has nothing to do with a border wall as that would be government owned and maintained. Nothing is being transferred from one private owner to another private owner.

Explain how you think Kelo is relevant to the wall...what do "leftists" have to do with any of this to begin with? You're quite the partisan hack, aren't you? You seem to think that republican ideas are good one by default just as democrat ideas are bad by default. You're wholly incapable of critical and unbiased independent analysis.

Go make some more orange man bad posts, ya :troll:
Click to expand...

Tell the class the origin of Eminent Domain, please.
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
Jerry Shugart said:
Why would anyone not want a wall?
Click to expand...

The premise of the OP is flawed. It's not just "liberals" who don't want a wall.

Immigration hardliners know the wall is a bad idea


The tell here is that when congressional Democrats started getting close to a deal that would swap help for DREAMers for wall money, immigration hawks swooped in — not with quibbles about the details but with a huge set of unrelated demands.

As Dara Lind wrote in January, the White House’s proposed framework for a deal ultimately included “an overhaul of asylum laws, stepped-up interior enforcement, and a broad crackdown on legal immigration on the scale of the Trump-endorsed RAISE Act.” The RAISE Act is a plan to cut legal immigration levels in half, which illustrates how little immigration restrictionists are actually focused on the nominal border security debate that has shut the government down.

But that’s the point. If your goal is to reduce the number of foreign-born people living in the United States by any means necessary, then building an extra 700 miles of border wall is not particularly useful. So extending a path to citizenship for DREAMers or anyone else in exchange for a not-very-useful wall is an unattractive deal.

By the same token, if the wall were extremely useful, then Trump could seek to offset its cost by reducing spending on some other aspect of immigration enforcement. But because the wall is a bad idea, that would be a bad deal and he wouldn’t offer it. He also obviously can’t offer to offset the cost with higher taxes on the rich because that would blow up the Republican Party coalition — a coalition that’s happy to exploit the border wall issue for partisan gain but that at its core is supposed to be delivering money to rich people.



MOST TEXANS ALONG THE BORDER DON’T WANT TRUMP’S WALL, AND MANY DOUBT IT WILL BE BUILT

Many Texans who live along the U.S.-Mexico border support President Donald Trump, but their affection for the New York real estate mogul-turned-politician comes with a caveat:

They do not want a wall.

The Star-Telegram recently visited a 325-mile stretch of the Lone Star State’s boundary with Mexico to gauge attitudes toward the proposed wall. The trip included stops in Presidio, Big Bend National Park, Del Rio and Eagle Pass in late April, and visits with a farmer, a rancher, a wildlife biologist, a sheriff and people from many other walks of life.

The reasons for their opposition to the wall are as varied as the communities that sit along the Rio Grande. Some are concerned about losing private land to make room for the structure. Others warned that building a continuous wall could cause massive flooding. Still others spoke against the potential impact on wildlife, and the state’s natural landscape.

And many border residents said they had serious doubts that such a wall would succeed in reducing illegal immigration or drug smuggling — the primary justifications often cited by supporters.

“Trump has done some good things with immigration, but he’s 100 percent wrong about the wall,” said Dob Cunningham, 83, a lifelong rancher and retired Border Patrol agent who owns hundreds of acres abutting the border in Quemado, north of Eagle Pass. “I haven’t found anybody — and I know people from Nogales [Arizona] to Brownsville — who wants that wall.”

Statewide, 61 percent of Texans oppose building a wall, while 35 percent support it and 4 percent don’t know or declined to answer, according to a poll conducted in April by Texas Lyceum, a nonprofit leadership organization.

Residents of the Lone Star State who live, work and play along the international boundary with Mexico say they are happy that the Trump administration’s plans to quickly build the wall have encountered complications in Washington.



“The people of the country” don’t agree with Trump on the shutdown or on the wall.


We looked at this last month, considering polling that showed that most Americans don’t support building a wall and that most think a shutdown should be avoided.

Trump’s discussion of what the American people want, though, is often a shorthand meant to refer to a specific subset of the American population: his base of supporters. There certainly are people who want the wall to be built, most of whom are Republicans and most of whom approve of the job Trump is doing. If that’s your definition of “the people,” then, well, sure. The people want the wall to be built.

It’s worth asking how many people that encompasses. Or, really, we can invert the question: Of Trump’s fervent base of support, what percentage thinks that this particular fight is one that is critical to pick? If Trump didn’t insist on this shutdown, how many of his “the people” would bail on him? That, after all, is the sense in which the shutdown is very much about 2020: Trump’s urgent insistence that his base get what it wants is his ongoing attempt to clutch those voters as close to his heart as he can.

Overall, most Americans approve of Trump’s efforts to protect the border, with more than three-quarters of white evangelical Christians and nearly all Republicans and people identified by Marist as Trump supporters agreeing.

This is an important point in part because it explains the rhetoric that Trump and his allies are using. For the most part, they’re framing the funding fight as being about border security, though the sticking point is obviously the specific subset of security funding that’s focused on a wall. As we’ve noted repeatedly, a wall itself would have only a minor effect on the issues that Trump insists are the problems that need to be addressed. Drug inflow, for example, mostly occurs at existing border crossing points. Most immigrants who come to the country illegally at this point come on valid visas but don’t leave when mandated — something that can happen just as easily at an airport as at the border with Mexico.

But back to that wall. Marist also asked a revealing question: How urgent should construction of the wall be? Half of Americans said it shouldn’t be a priority at all. But only two-thirds of even Trump’s most fervent supporters said it was something that needed to be done right now.

:think:

I think it's safe to say that this wall isn't going to happen as Trump has envisioned it.
 
K

Kit the Coyote

New member
WizardofOz said:
The premise of the OP is flawed. It's not just "liberals" who don't want a wall.

Immigration hardliners know the wall is a bad idea


The tell here is that when congressional Democrats started getting close to a deal that would swap help for DREAMers for wall money, immigration hawks swooped in — not with quibbles about the details but with a huge set of unrelated demands.

As Dara Lind wrote in January, the White House’s proposed framework for a deal ultimately included “an overhaul of asylum laws, stepped-up interior enforcement, and a broad crackdown on legal immigration on the scale of the Trump-endorsed RAISE Act.” The RAISE Act is a plan to cut legal immigration levels in half, which illustrates how little immigration restrictionists are actually focused on the nominal border security debate that has shut the government down.

But that’s the point. If your goal is to reduce the number of foreign-born people living in the United States by any means necessary, then building an extra 700 miles of border wall is not particularly useful. So extending a path to citizenship for DREAMers or anyone else in exchange for a not-very-useful wall is an unattractive deal.

By the same token, if the wall were extremely useful, then Trump could seek to offset its cost by reducing spending on some other aspect of immigration enforcement. But because the wall is a bad idea, that would be a bad deal and he wouldn’t offer it. He also obviously can’t offer to offset the cost with higher taxes on the rich because that would blow up the Republican Party coalition — a coalition that’s happy to exploit the border wall issue for partisan gain but that at its core is supposed to be delivering money to rich people.



MOST TEXANS ALONG THE BORDER DON’T WANT TRUMP’S WALL, AND MANY DOUBT IT WILL BE BUILT

Many Texans who live along the U.S.-Mexico border support President Donald Trump, but their affection for the New York real estate mogul-turned-politician comes with a caveat:

They do not want a wall.

The Star-Telegram recently visited a 325-mile stretch of the Lone Star State’s boundary with Mexico to gauge attitudes toward the proposed wall. The trip included stops in Presidio, Big Bend National Park, Del Rio and Eagle Pass in late April, and visits with a farmer, a rancher, a wildlife biologist, a sheriff and people from many other walks of life.

The reasons for their opposition to the wall are as varied as the communities that sit along the Rio Grande. Some are concerned about losing private land to make room for the structure. Others warned that building a continuous wall could cause massive flooding. Still others spoke against the potential impact on wildlife, and the state’s natural landscape.

And many border residents said they had serious doubts that such a wall would succeed in reducing illegal immigration or drug smuggling — the primary justifications often cited by supporters.

“Trump has done some good things with immigration, but he’s 100 percent wrong about the wall,” said Dob Cunningham, 83, a lifelong rancher and retired Border Patrol agent who owns hundreds of acres abutting the border in Quemado, north of Eagle Pass. “I haven’t found anybody — and I know people from Nogales [Arizona] to Brownsville — who wants that wall.”

Statewide, 61 percent of Texans oppose building a wall, while 35 percent support it and 4 percent don’t know or declined to answer, according to a poll conducted in April by Texas Lyceum, a nonprofit leadership organization.

Residents of the Lone Star State who live, work and play along the international boundary with Mexico say they are happy that the Trump administration’s plans to quickly build the wall have encountered complications in Washington.



“The people of the country” don’t agree with Trump on the shutdown or on the wall.


We looked at this last month, considering polling that showed that most Americans don’t support building a wall and that most think a shutdown should be avoided.

Trump’s discussion of what the American people want, though, is often a shorthand meant to refer to a specific subset of the American population: his base of supporters. There certainly are people who want the wall to be built, most of whom are Republicans and most of whom approve of the job Trump is doing. If that’s your definition of “the people,” then, well, sure. The people want the wall to be built.

It’s worth asking how many people that encompasses. Or, really, we can invert the question: Of Trump’s fervent base of support, what percentage thinks that this particular fight is one that is critical to pick? If Trump didn’t insist on this shutdown, how many of his “the people” would bail on him? That, after all, is the sense in which the shutdown is very much about 2020: Trump’s urgent insistence that his base get what it wants is his ongoing attempt to clutch those voters as close to his heart as he can.

Overall, most Americans approve of Trump’s efforts to protect the border, with more than three-quarters of white evangelical Christians and nearly all Republicans and people identified by Marist as Trump supporters agreeing.

This is an important point in part because it explains the rhetoric that Trump and his allies are using. For the most part, they’re framing the funding fight as being about border security, though the sticking point is obviously the specific subset of security funding that’s focused on a wall. As we’ve noted repeatedly, a wall itself would have only a minor effect on the issues that Trump insists are the problems that need to be addressed. Drug inflow, for example, mostly occurs at existing border crossing points. Most immigrants who come to the country illegally at this point come on valid visas but don’t leave when mandated — something that can happen just as easily at an airport as at the border with Mexico.

But back to that wall. Marist also asked a revealing question: How urgent should construction of the wall be? Half of Americans said it shouldn’t be a priority at all. But only two-thirds of even Trump’s most fervent supporters said it was something that needed to be done right now.

:think:

I think it's safe to say that this wall isn't going to happen as Trump has envisioned it.
Click to expand...

I saw a commentary the other day that points out that Trump may not actually want the wall as he is really doing none of the deal-making negotiations to actually get it. The writer believes what he is really after is just to be seen fighting for the wall to appease his base.
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
Kit the Coyote said:
I saw a commentary the other day that points out that Trump may not actually want the wall as he is really doing none of the deal-making negotiations to actually get it. The writer believes what he is really after is just to be seen fighting for the wall to appease his base.
Click to expand...

Well, it's working on plenty of TOLers so I'm sure his national base is eating it up
 
WizardofOz

WizardofOz

New member
musterion said:
I'm not a Republican, you liberaltarian leftie.
Click to expand...
:chuckle:

musterion said:
Tell the class the origin of Eminent Domain, please.

You know what it is but can't bear to say it.
Click to expand...


The term "eminent domain" was taken from the legal treatise De Jure Belli et Pacis, written by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1625,[4] which used the term dominium eminens (Latin for supreme lordship) and described the power as follows:

... The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property.



Yeah. Ouch that hurt...

Since I'm so libertarian you must expect that I don't really support government seizure of private property. :duh:
 
musterion

musterion

Well-known member
WizardofOz said:
:chuckle:



The term "eminent domain" was taken from the legal treatise De Jure Belli et Pacis, written by the Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius in 1625,[4] which used the term dominium eminens (Latin for supreme lordship) and described the power as follows:

... The property of subjects is under the eminent domain of the state, so that the state or he who acts for it may use and even alienate and destroy such property, not only in the case of extreme necessity, in which even private persons have a right over the property of others, but for ends of public utility, to which ends those who founded civil society must be supposed to have intended that private ends should give way. But it is to be added that when this is done the state is bound to make good the loss to those who lose their property.



Yeah. Ouch that hurt...

Since I'm so libertarian you must expect that I don't really support government seizure of private property. :duh:
Click to expand...


In American jurisprudence. You knew that's what I meant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top