Trump: Working Day 1 Explained

[yjacket]

I did mean California driver's license for CDL.  Now, I don't know if getting an AB-60 triggers automatic voter registration or not.  My state does not automatically register anyone to vote-you are asked, but it is not automatic.  So I really don't care much about automatic voter registration, simply the fact that illegals can vote in California-there is a mechanism in place for them to do so.

Yes, anatess corrected me on the undocumented part-now they are just documented illegals.  It basically puts people who jump the border in the same boat as overstay visa holders.  In fact, contrary to popular belief the greatest amount of illegals doesn't come from people jumping the border, but people who come here legally (through work visas, student visas, etc.) and just quite simply don't go back when their visa is up. And that is the point, if you are already a criminal by overstaying your visa or jumping the border-why would you not commit another crime by registering to vote?

Regardless California has made it extremely easy for illegals to be just the same as everyone else and easy to cross into other states.  Many states simply require another states DL in order to issue their own DL, is Florida DMV going to know exactly what to look for on the California DL to know it's a AB-60, not a regular DL.  Is TSA in South Carolina going to know that the AB-60 CDL can't be used for identification??  I highly doubt it.

California has opened a can of worms, and yes I distrust my government enough to believe that when they passed this law they understood the potential consequences.  Just like those Obamaphones.  As was relayed first hand to me, there are booths where they give out Obamaphones and they "give you a call or something on them when it's time to vote so you can know you need to vote".  The Ds are very, very sneaky about getting votes.

Edited January 27, 2017 by yjacket

[Blueskye2]

36 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

I always posit - documentation is good.  Registration is good.  That's why I supported the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Reform bill that would have legalized illegal aliens by having them apply for documentation and pay a fine.  It's the undocumented ones that pose difficulty to society.  Sanctuary cities that prevent documentation sharing between city/state/Feds is bad for society.

Voter's registrations are easy to investigate.  There's a paper trail.  Of course, if you don't want to be found, then it's bad for you.

Sure, like being registered to vote in two states at the same time.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act#Federally_mandated_standards_for_state_driver.27s_licenses_or_ID_cards

Requires states share their DMV databases with other states and the feds. California is in the process of compliance.

 

 

Edited January 27, 2017 by Blueskye2

[Blueskye2]

16 minutes ago, yjacket said:

I did mean California driver's license for CDL.  Now, I don't know if getting an AB-60 triggers automatic voter registration or not.  My state does not automatically register anyone to vote-you are asked, but it is not automatic.  So I really don't care much about automatic voter registration, simply the fact that illegals can vote in California-there is a mechanism in place for them to do so.

Yes, anatess corrected me on the undocumented part-now they are just documented illegals.  It basically puts people who jump the border in the same boat as overstay visa holders.  In fact, contrary to popular belief the greatest amount of illegals doesn't come from people jumping the border, but people who come here legally (through work visas, student visas, etc.) and just quite simply don't go back when their visa is up. And that is the point, if you are already a criminal by overstaying your visa or jumping the border-why would you not commit another crime by registering to vote?

Regardless California has made it extremely easy for illegals to be just the same as everyone else and easy to cross into other states.  Many states simply require another states DL in order to issue their own DL, is Florida DMV going to know exactly what to look for on the California DL to know it's a AB-60, not a regular DL.  Is TSA in South Carolina going to know that the AB-60 CDL can't be used for identification??  I highly doubt it.

California has opened a can of worms, and yes I distrust my government enough to believe that when they passed this law they understood the potential consequences.  Just like those Obamaphones.  As was relayed first hand to me, there are booths where they give out Obamaphones and they "give you a call or something on them when it's time to vote so you can know you need to vote".  The Ds are very, very sneaky about getting votes.

There are federal standards for IDs, that if they aren't met, the TSA will not accept the ID as valid at airport security. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act#Federally_mandated_standards_for_state_driver.27s_licenses_or_ID_cards

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/265282-tsa-to-stop-accepting-unsecured-drivers-licenses-in-2018

Edited January 27, 2017 by Blueskye2

[yjacket]

8 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

There are federal standards for IDs, that if they aren't met, the TSA will not accept the ID as valid at airport security. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act#Federally_mandated_standards_for_state_driver.27s_licenses_or_ID_cards

http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/265282-tsa-to-stop-accepting-unsecured-drivers-licenses-in-2018

Yes  . .and?? Your point being?  

AB-60 is a legal California Driver's license that complies with the REAL ID act-the only physical difference between an AB-60 and a regular DL is a that the upper right hand corner states: FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY (i.e. it shouldn't be used for travle), right about CLASS A-that's it.  And if you believe that our illustrious TSA is going to be able to kick out every one who has that on their license-I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Again, if everyone does things on the up and up-there should be no problems.  But if you are an illegal, you already aren't on the up and up-so yes there will be problems.

[anatess2]

I knew this guy was a workaholic, but man... this is beyond my idea of workaholic. 

He's had 2 press interviews - one regular channel (Muir for ABC), one cable (Hannity for Fox News)

2 phone meetings with heads of state - Israel and India - and one in-person meeting with the prime minister of Great Britain. 

Mobilized Fed Aid to Georgia, Oregon, and Mississippi for Disaster Relief,

Declared January 22 - 28 as National School Choice Week (we already have this in Florida - I just spent all of last Saturday going through all the high school presentations to figure out which one would be best for my kid who is starting high school next school year  I set up 3 school tours plus an IB tour and a demo on Virtual School.).

And signed more Executive Orders as follows:

1.) Border Security and Immigration - I really can't find the time to review all these, so I'll just link it here for all y'all to read through - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/executive-order-border-security-and-immigration-enforcement-improvements

I took a quick glance at it and Dough Ducey will be happy to know that he now has the President cooperating with him on law enforcement...

2.) Interior Enforcement of Immigration Laws - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/presidential-executive-order-enhancing-public-safety-interior-united

Quick glance shows it addresses sanctuary cities by withholding Fed Funding to sanctuary cities except as obligated by law.  Also contains the withholding of Fed Aid to countries who refuse to repatriate their citizens who are to be deported.  Also contains the prioritization of certain "types" of INA violators for deportation as follows:

(a)  Have been convicted of any criminal offense;

(b)  Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved; 

(c)  Have committed acts that constitute a chargeable criminal offense;

(d)  Have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter or application before a governmental agency; 

(e)  Have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;

(f)  Are subject to a final order of removal, but who have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or

(g)  In the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security. 

 

And some more appointments to the cabinet.  Still only has... I think 4... cabinet secretaries approved by the Senate.  The rest are still stuck in hearings including his Commerce Secretary... so Trump said at the GOP retreat paraphrased - "I'm meeting with Theresa May on trade and I don't have a Commerce Secretary so I guess I'll have to do all of this myself".

 

Edited January 27, 2017 by anatess2

[Vort]

2 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Ah, start out my day with a cup of coffee and a loaded question. 

How is it loaded? It's an honest question, and a simple one at that, answerable with a "yes" or a "no". If you found out that illegal immigrants were indeed voting in California, and that the California law encouraged or at least allowed such a thing to happen, would you then agree that this voter fraud must be stopped?

[anatess2]

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

How is it loaded? It's an honest question, and a simple one at that, answerable with a "yes" or a "no". If you found out that illegal immigrants were indeed voting in California, and that the California law encouraged or at least allowed such a thing to happen, would you then agree that this voter fraud must be stopped?

I'm not blueskye, but to me, the answer to this is very simple.  If you agreed that Russia should be sanctioned for tampering with election results, then voter fraud MUST be stopped.  Otherwise, cyber security is just chasing shadows when some government can just send a bunch of people through the Mexican tunnels to flip an election.  I mean... yes, it's highly unlikely you can flip a Presidential election in this manner.  But... it can do tons of damage on the state level.

 

Edited January 27, 2017 by anatess2

[Blueskye2]

3 minutes ago, yjacket said:

Yes  . .and?? Your point being?  

AB-60 is a legal California Driver's license that complies with the REAL ID act-the only physical difference between an AB-60 and a regular DL is a that the upper right hand corner states: FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY (i.e. it shouldn't be used for travle), right about CLASS A-that's it.  And if you believe that our illustrious TSA is going to be able to kick out every one who has that on their license-I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Again, if everyone does things on the up and up-there should be no problems.  But if you are an illegal, you already aren't on the up and up-so yes there will be problems.

My point being, everything is on the up and up, according to federal guidelines for IDs.

Here's the problem, as I see it. There are very conservative states, as for example where I live, Utah, that are not going to comply with the REAL-ID act, in all areas. They refuse to do so, citing State rights and federal govt over-reach.

California claims the same thing, in its right to license whoever they want to drive on their roads, while not allowing the feds to interfere with their state rights. 

[mordorbund]

48 minutes ago, yjacket said:

In fact, contrary to popular belief the greatest amount of illegals doesn't come from people jumping the border, but people who come here legally (through work visas, student visas, etc.) and just quite simply don't go back when their visa is up.

Then building the wall is just a very expensive token (much like TSA).

[yjacket]

8 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

California claims the same thing, in its right to license whoever they want to drive on their roads, while not allowing the feds to interfere with their state rights. 

Oh you'll get no complaint from me on State's rights.  I hate the REALID act, I believe it is severe federal overreach.  California has the right to do how they please . . . but just b/c they do doesn't mean I have to like, regardless of what state I live in.  

And this is why I'm glad for the electoral college.  

California could let anyone who breaths vote and they still only get 55 electoral college votes.

Doesn't mean I am happy with the potential of illegals voting, doesn't mean I won't complain about it-but ultimately California can do what it wants to and it will still get 55 electoral college votes.

[anatess2]

4 minutes ago, Blueskye2 said:

My point being, everything is on the up and up, according to federal guidelines for IDs.

Here's the problem, as I see it. There are very conservative states, as for example where I live, Utah, that are not going to comply with the REAL-ID act, in all areas. They refuse to do so, citing State rights and federal govt over-reach.

California claims the same thing, in its right to license whoever they want to drive on their roads, while not allowing the feds to interfere with their state rights. 

Okay, let me just butt in here...

Both of you have a point but both of you are missing each other's point.  @yjacket is simply pointing to voter fraud.  Blueskye, as I understand it, is simply pointing out that there's no problem with the issuing DL process.  So you're not talking about the same thing.

But, regardless... both your points are irrelevant to the Trump voter-fraud investigation issue because... the people do not elect the President of the USA.  The State does.  So, voting in a Presidential election is technically not voting - it is simply polling.  The State simply uses the vote as a means to figure out who the State electors are going to vote for.  The State can say, you know what, it's too expensive to run a Presidential election in the state of California... we're just going to scrap voting and just send our electors to vote for the choice of the political party of the governor... or something.

So, this voter fraud investigation is not about counting votes.  This voter fraud investigation is gathering a list of names of illegal immigrants that are going to be deported.  If the investigation comes up with Zero illegal immigrants that voted, then nobody gets deported.  So the decision to investigate is not about the election.  The decision to investigate is a decision on whether the cost of conducting the investigation (would be lower than sending out immigration officers to knock on doors) is worth the impact on the effort to deport illegal immigrants.

 

 

[anatess2]

5 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Then building the wall is just a very expensive token (much like TSA).

Actually, that's not the case.  Criminal activity rarely comes from people who overstay visas.  El Chapo, for example, has done lots of damage to the US and he is somewhere in New York.  He didn't overstay a visa.

[Guest MormonGator]

10 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

Then building the wall is just a very expensive token (much like TSA).

 Yup. It'll make people feel better but it won't solve the underlying problems. And if there is a tariff created on products, the costs will just be passed on to the consumers and it'll hurt everyone who buys said products. Basic economics. 

Free trade and open borders will create prosperity for all parties involved. 

Edited January 27, 2017 by MormonGator

[anatess2]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

 Yup. It'll make people feel better but it won't solve the underlying problems. And if there is a tariff implied on Mexico, the costs will just be passed on to the consumers. Basic economics. 

Uhm... tell that to the victims of drug cartels.

On tariffs, basic economics also dictates that cost passed on to consumers allows competitors not subject to those tariffs to have an increased competitive edge and take their place in the supply chain.  I can't think of a single Mexican import that can't be made anywhere else.  That's pretty much the basis of the renegotiation of NAFTA.  A $60Billiion trade deficit is not doing the US any good.  At all.  Nada.

Edited January 27, 2017 by anatess2

[Mike]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

So, this voter fraud investigation is not about counting votes.  This voter fraud investigation is gathering a list of names of illegal immigrants that are going to be deported.  If the investigation comes up with Zero illegal immigrants that voted, then nobody gets deported.  So the decision to investigate is not about the election.  The decision to investigate is a decision on whether the cost of conducting the investigation (would be lower than sending out immigration officers to knock on doors) is worth the impact on the effort to deport illegal immigrants.

Since the investigation is, as you say, to find illegal immigrants (at a lower cost) why should we believe an investigation into voter fraud will yield cost-effectively identified numbers of them? And since cost seems to be an important factor here, there are other cheap ways (not necessarily very American to the minds of some Americans) but traditionally effective to find people who don't look like they belong in a voting booth. Does he still believe that there were millions of them who cost him the popular vote, er, I mean poll?

Edited January 27, 2017 by Mike

[Guest MormonGator]

46 minutes ago, Mike said:

 And since cost seems to be an important factor here

Cost isn't an important factor for a president who wants to spend millions on a wall. This is the first time in my life I've seen conservatives (who are generally against government waste, correctly so) cheer such a massive government project. Big dig 2.0. 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, MormonGator said:

Cost isn't an important factor for a president who wants to spend millions on a wall. This is the first time in my life I've seen conservatives (who are generally against government waste, correctly so) cheer such a massive government project. Big dig 2.0. 

As a non-Trumpster but one who has been, on the balanced, positively impressed by him since his election, I can answer this one easily: Conservatives want government to act in the way government is supposed to act. Securing our borders is the primary function of our federal government, arguably more important than any other single duty. Currently, our southern border is absurdly porous. With people like blueskye wanting the franchise for non-citizens, it behooves those of us who actually love our country to see to border enforcement. Of course conservatives approve of expenses necessary to secure our border! Even liberals approve of it, if they love the USA.

Perhaps some believe there are more effective and less costly border enforcement alternatives than building a wall. That's a perfectly reasonable discussion. But no one who actually understands conservative thought will be baffled at conservative support for border security, even if it involves a large capital outlay.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

As a non-Trumpster but one who has been, on the balanced, positively impressed by him since his election, I can answer this one easily: Conservatives want government to act in the way government is supposed to act. Securing our borders is the primary function of our federal government, arguably more important than any other single duty. Currently, our southern border is absurdly porous. With people like blueskye wanting the franchise for non-citizens, it behooves those of us who actually love our country to see to border enforcement. Of course conservatives approve of expenses necessary to secure our border! Even liberals approve of it, if they love the USA.

Perhaps some believe there are more effective and less costly border enforcement alternatives than building a wall. That's a perfectly reasonable discussion. But no one who actually understands conservative thought will be baffled at conservative support for border security, even if it involves a large capital outlay.

This is certainly an issue where we will have to agree to disagree. To some conservatives like me, this is (to paraphrase Jim Callaghan) like the turkeys voting for an early Thanksgiving. It'll turn into a debacle of epic proportions. 

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

This is certainly an issue where we will have to agree to disagree. To some conservatives like me, this is (to paraphrase Jim Callaghan) like the turkeys voting for an early Thanksgiving. It'll turn into a debacle of epic proportions. 

MG, do you mean that you don't think border enforcement is a worthwhile priority? Or do you mean that you think there are much better ways to do it? If the latter, then you fall under my second paragraph.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Vort said:

MG, do you mean that you don't think border enforcement is a worthwhile priority? Or do you mean that you think there are much better ways to do it? If the latter, then you fall under my second paragraph.

I'm not a wide eyed idealist on this issue. We certainly need some type of border control.

But building a wall and I assure you of this-will be a disaster. Cost overrides, the project will never be finished, tax increases, more red tape and government control over our lives, etc. All things conservatives generally claim to dislike. 

Not only that, but do you think the wall will last when democrats gain power? "Mr/Mrs. Democrat president, tear down this wall." We would have wasted millions with nothing to show for it. 

Horrible idea. 

[Vort]

I suspect it would be political suicide for a president to dismantle border security. If "the wall" gets built, I doubt it comes down any time soon.

[Guest MormonGator]

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

I suspect it would be political suicide for a president to dismantle border security. If "the wall" gets built, I doubt it comes down any time soon.

And that my friend, is where we will have to disagree. First chance democrats get, this precious little wall will be gone. 

Edited January 27, 2017 by MormonGator

[Vort]

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

And that my friend, is where we will have to disagree. First chance democrats get, this precious little wall will be gone. 

You may be right. If the "wall" gets built, we'll see. (I suspect the "wall" will be more like fortified fencing with armed guards posted at intervals.)

[Guest Godless]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

On tariffs, basic economics also dictates that cost passed on to consumers allows competitors not subject to those tariffs to have an increased competitive edge and take their place in the supply chain.  I can't think of a single Mexican import that can't be made anywhere else.  That's pretty much the basis of the renegotiation of NAFTA. 

Basic economics is based on supply/demand. If Mexican imports increase in price or decrease in supply due to decreased demand (because of increase in price), that means that domestic products will also increase in price because 1) US producers won't be able to pick up the slack overnight, and 2) it makes perfect fiscal sense to price yourself just below your foreign competition. Also, keep in mind that there are many US-based companies, especially in border states, that do a lot of business in Mexico. It can be assumed that any tariff we impose on Mexico will be matched in kind, meaning that US companies are going to lose a good chunk of their foreign market. A smaller market means higher prices so these companies can keep the lights on. If the market rejects the price hike, then American companies end up going out of business. So not only does this plan still make Americans pay for the wall in a sense, but it also has the potential to put American jobs at risk. 

A $60Billiion trade deficit is not doing the US any good. At all. Nada.

The trade deficit doesn't tell the full story. Under NAFTA, US exports to Mexico have more than tripled [source]. The $60M deficit only means that the foreign market for Mexican companies has grown a bit more than for US companies, but overall the deal has been great for US companies that export goods and services to Mexico. I'm not saying that we shouldn't try to close the trade gap, but tariffs aren't going to accomplish that. It's only going to ignite a trade war that will hurt the economies of both countries, weaken the purchasing power of middle class Americans, and put US jobs at risk via diminishing markets.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Godless said:

 So not only does this plan still make Americans pay for the wall in a sense, but it also has the potential to put American jobs at risk. 

Economics don't matter in a post-truth, alternative facts presidency. Reading economists like Milton Friedman, FA Hayek and Adam Smith made me a conservative. They are weeping right now. The GOP is no longer the William F Buckley party.