After what can only be described as the most amazing, best, super-awesome political campaign in the history of the United States, Donald Trump was sworn in today at noon as the 45th chief executive of our beloved nation.
Trump’s inauguration followed that of his unexpected running mate and now vice president, his sentient toupee. Early attendance estimates range from nine to 10 million, making it the largest political gathering in all of history.
As promised on the campaign trail, each attendee received $50 as a “political motivator.” Every person who voted for Trump will receive a package this week that includes their promised $20 and a limited edition clipping of Trump’s golden body hair.
In his inaugural address, Trump thanked the American people for their “overwhelming and entirely voluntary support” of his campaign and once again reiterated that he was “only joking” when he threatened to kidnap and torture political opponents of his. In unrelated news, Megyn Kelly, former Fox News contributor, is still missing after three months.
Last Tuesday saw the release of a statement by President of Mexico Enrique Nieto confirming the completion of the 200 foot wall demanded by Trump. As previously reported, the project was funded entirely by the Mexican government, costing American taxpayers absolutely nothing.
Trump applauded Mexico in his address, stating that “Mexico has done a valuable service to herself… and her people,” and “I’m honestly happy I don’t have to invade. I mean, really, I’m not saying that I won’t, but it’s certainly less likely now.”
Trump said that he intends to follow through with his campaign promise to end unemployment by confining the poorest 10 percent of the population to “systematically and efficiently harvest their precious life energy to keep myself forever young.”
Life-energy harvesters will be contracted by the Federal government, and Trump encouraged citizens, especially retirees and students, to get involved by registering as an organ harvester on his $4 website, healthreap.gov
The first item on Trump’s foreign policy agenda as president is “making sure that America has the tools it needs to negotiate favorable trade arrangements, get our jobs back and make America great again. And to do that, we’re gonna need a lot bigger guns, folks. I mean, look at what we have now; you think China’s scared of that?”
With these new actions, President Trump has established himself as the greatest president in not just American history, but the world.
All hail our beautiful-haired overlord.
Opinion columnist Dane Hall is a sociology senior and may be reached at [email protected]
Satire is always a fun read. But what’s really needed is a critical examination of Primadonald’s numerous proposals and promises that seem based far more on bravado than thoughtful planning and strategic implementation. In particular, what will all his grand schemes cost? We can start with the rounding up and deportation of 11 million illegals and their children. Estimates put that figure at between $1 and 2 Billion. To be paid for by whom? Inquiring minds want to know!!
Who pays for illegals now? We all do, and spending $1-$2 Billion is a drop in the bucket.
Education alone, do you know what kind of strain millions of illiterate children, who can’t even speak the language of the country they live in, has on our nations school systems? Estimates have it at $11-$30 Billion each year.
Who pays when they need medical care, flooding the hospital emergency rooms that can’t turn them away? Related, who pays for the ~400,000 children born in those hospitals to illegal immigrants each year? That’s 1 in 10 children born every year in this country from non-citizens. How many Billion$$$?
I only scratched the surface. Shall I go on?
A more recent estimate of cost by the conservative American Action Forum puts Primadonald’s plan into a 20-year/$500 billion framework, and we’ve yet to consider the cost of his fanciful wall that will regularly be scaled. There is a better way forward and it involves feckless House Speaker John Boehner forcing a debate and vote on the Senate’s bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that was tabled by the aforementioned many months ago.
If I were to take that at face value, then that’s $25 billion a year. Less than what we pay in education alone (in today’s $$$).
This might sound irrational, but as someone who has traveled throughout the world, meeting people from almost every country (less so from Africa), I believe, until we control our southern land border, that we should remove all immigration controls from our air and water points of entry. Sounds drastic, but what’s the difference? Why give one group of immigrants special treatment only due to geography (our neighbours). Again, there are millions of people from all over the world who would love the opportunity to come to the U.S., but would be stopped at the airport, or seaport, because at those two points of entry THE LAW is actually being ENFORCED.
That brings us to why the House and Senate couldn’t come up with a solution. One group (D) wants (almost) immediate amnesty. The other group (R) knows that until the southern border is secured, all of this is futile. We know it’s futile because we’ve been here before, in 1986 with the IRCA, when a large group of southern illegal immigrants were granted citizenship. One of the stipulations of that Act (IRCA) was to secure the border, which obviously, never happened. Why should we believe it (securing the border) will happen this time? Are we that foolish?
Well, max, there’s no arguing with your basic math; 20 yrs. X 25 billion = $500 Billion. But spread across 20 years, everything will cost more due to inflation. Even worse, both of us are working off of estimates that may be on the low side. In that regard, does the $500 B include the court cost of invalidating anchor babies’ citizenship to send them home?
Surely you know that the GOP-controlled Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform bill with bipartisan support. It died in the GOP controlled House because Boehner, following the Hastert Rule, couldn’t marshal 218 GOP votes to pass it or even engage in debate.
No president did a better job of enforcing existing laws than Obama. So enforcement is possible. Any wall can be scaled or tunneled under. So what would you accept as a criterion for success? Keep in mind that the US/Mexican border is just short of 2,000 miles long. How high should it be, and how deep will its base need to be buried? Now we are talking cost that’s well beyond $500 B.
“No president did a better job of enforcing existing laws than Obama.”
Sorry if my response is a bit incoherent, I don’t type very well when I’m laughing hysterically. What you really should have said is “After changing the way ICE tracks deportations, no president did a better job,,,,,” You’re sounding like a particular UG PoliSci instructor I had at UH. He was so lacking in intellectual honesty that I lost quite a bit of respect for UH.
Although I do give Obama credit for misleading the public on this issue (immigration, and “enforcing” laws in general). Should we discuss Obama’s Executive Orders, or Memorandums, or Actions, or whatever else he decides to call them (also to mislead). Sorry, if you think setting free ~70,000 illegal’s with criminal history that were in ICE’s custody, or allowing another ~290,000 pass thru last summer is “enforcement,” then this discussion is not worth continuing. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
The House is the voice of the people. And the Representatives listened to their constituents, like they were elected to do so. IMO, that’s a good thing.
Few people who know anything about the border situation are saying we need to build a 2,000 mile wall. As such, according to your defeatist logic, then we should just give up and go with my original plan to open all points of entry. Imagine how much money we will save by not enforcing our current laws!!! Also Imagine all the educated illegal immigrants that could come here. Hope your job is secure.
Let me return your “UG” snark with one of my own: If you think, on the topic of the Senate’s immigration bill, the House is representing the ‘will of the people” you’re as misled as you accuse me of being. The Tea Party Caucus, comprised of just 40 – 50 reps. held that legislation hostage even though it would easily pass with a combination of other GOP + Dem votes. That’s not a “good thing”; it’s a sign of what Mann and Ornstein labelled as the House’s “asymmetric dysfunction” with most of it being a GOP thingy. Whatever happened to “the majority rules”?
Obama’s EO’s and other acts are being or will be tested in the courts. Until, verdicts are forthcoming, your judgments are prejudicial and worthless.
Finally, can you break down the criminal records of the “70,000”? How many are misdemeanors? How many are low level felonies like possession of an ounce of grass? I can’t and suspect you can’t either.
BTW: I would love an answer to my question about what you would consider an “acceptable criterion” vis a vis the interdiction of illegal border crossings, wall or no wall.
I don’t know who you are, so my comment about a particular undergrad (UG) PoliSci instructor at UH wasn’t personal. However, if you happen to work in the PoliSci dept at UH, then please take it as feedback. I stand by it, and it really changed my opinion of “higher education.” Also, if you are part of that Dept. (PoliSci) then I would hope you support a Govt. of the people that is guided by laws created by the people and are enforced by such Govt… If not, then you validate my initial impression of that Dept.
Majority rules??? Sorry, not in the Obama administration. The Dream Act did not pass by the “majority” in Congress yet Obama basically deemed it so via Executive Action (or whatever he called it).
Think about that… Imagine if the next president decides via Executive “whatever” that the EPA shouldn’t enforce the Clean Air, or Water Act? Or promotes leasing of National Parks for oil exploration? Sounds horrific, but his (Obama’s) orders aren’t any different when looking at it from an executive or legal aspect.
Break down the criminal records of the 70K criminal illegals? Really???!!! There is no splitting hairs as to what is more, or less, “illegal.” And I shouldn’t have to say this, but, it’s against the law to be here illegally, period. By law, they are supposed to be deported, PERIOD. If you disagree with a law then CHANGE THE DANG LAW! Enough of this lawlessness. Geeez! Is this what we’ve come to as a nation, or society?? If so, then God help us.
A nation without boarders is not a nation. We need to enforce our existing immigration laws and borders, period.
Obama’s EOs were a product of the failure of the GOP-controlled House to act. And, Obama warned them in his SOTU speech; i.e. if you don’t act, I will. We flounder when one party refuses to govern.
Our immigration system is broken and it will remain so until the same House Tea Party Caucus chooses to do something about it; like allowing at least for debate of the Senate’s bipartisan bill. You urge me to “change the dang law” when that simply isn’t possible because of the aforementioned minority of reps. Until you acknowledge those realities, there is little room for discussion though I have come to believe that we share some common basic goals.
Anyone who agree’s with Obama’s EO’s on immigration is either:
A) Ignorant of the three branches of our Govt. and their individual authorities/power granted by our Constitution. or,
B) Wilfully ignorant, and accept the illegal action of Obama because they happen to agree with it.
Both choices are frightening for us as a country.
I keep hearing these defeatist arguments regarding our immigration crisis (yes, it is a crisis). It’s not that difficult. Our immigration system is broken because we fail to uphold our laws. If we remove the incentive for them being here by enforcing our current laws regarding employing undocumented workers, and apply penalties to those businesses that do so (as already specified in the law), then what do you think will occur?
And please, enough with the Tea Party. All of my liberal friends, whenever presented facts or logic they disagree with, close their eyes, cover their ears, and scream “Tea Party, Tea Party, Tea Party!!!” It’s annoying. Please read and understand choice “A” above.
If Obama’s EO on immigration is “illegal”, then why did Boehner choose to challenge it in court? The legality of that EO has yet to be decided so your use of the word “illegal” is prejudicial and decidedly premature. Just because you label something with great conviction doesn’t make it so.
As for the Tea Party, I am referring specifically and exclusively to that group’s caucus in the House; i.e. the same collection of individuals who shut down the gov’t for over 3 weeks at a cost of about $24 billion. Boehner finally saw how badly this action was damaging the GOP brand so he brought the budget up for a vote and allowed the majority to rule. It passed with plenty of votes to spare.
It’s that same collection of obstructionists who have tied Boehner’s hands by telling him that they would vote en masse against even debating the Senate’s bipartisan immigration bill. So, that minority of representatives continues to thwart the will of the majority. Until you acknowledge that reality, you have no business lecturing anyone about how our gov’t is supposed to work.
If the laws on the books were adequate to address our very real immigration problem, there would have been no need for the Senate to craft their bill, debate and pass it.
Your selective disregard for facts and the obvious is also “annoying”.
It’s not a matter of conviction, but Constitution. I’m sure you can find an unadulterated copy online.
Hmmmm, I see that the Legislative branch (Congress) is responsible for creating laws (as noted). Actually, it’s very specific in Section 1 of Article 1 as to who has that authority. Yes?
I also see where it states the President is responsible for preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution. That is implied to include ensuring the laws (passed by Congress) are fully executed by the departments/agencies of the Federal Govt. (e.g. ICE, CBP). Do we agree so far?
Funny, I don’t see any mention, implied or otherwise, that the President, after “warning them (congress) during his SOTU speech,” has any authority to create laws and/or “orders” holding the same weight as laws, or change the intent of existing laws that were passed by the Legislative branch. Actually, the drafters of the Constitution were very afraid of such action and specifically separated the powers of Govt. to prevent it.
If you are so concerned about passing a budget then where were you during the first 5 years of the Obama term? ZERO budgets passed for FIVE YEARS!! That included two years where the Dems had total control, zip, zero, nada! Add to that the Dem controlled Senate didn’t pass ANY budget resolution for FOUR years! Totally irresponsible.
Oh, but those evil, evil, Tea Partiers!!! Bad, bad, bad!!
So, what is worse? I’m assuming in your opinion being completely irresponsible (no budget) is better than letting the legislative process work as it’s supposed too. (hint, it’s designed to be difficult to protect us from an even more controlling central govt.)
Meanwhile, the generation that is currently attending UH is going to be severely disadvantaged for their entire working lives due to Obama doubling the national debt during his time in office. Adding more debt than all of the presidents before him COMBINED!!. “Shhhhhh,” don’t tell them.
And you’re upset about “shutting down the govt.” Umm, in case you didn’t notice, the Govt. never shut down. It’s just another misleading tactic to fool the uninformed.
Then you’re upset that the Tea Party prevented the latest immigration bill. After what happened since the 1986 passage of the IRCA, YOU think it’s UNREASONABLE for our elected officials to require the Fed Govt. enforce its EXISTING LAWS to secure the border, and enforce EXISTING interior illegal immigration laws before passage of yet another law……
Seriously???
Max: Quit hiding behind your narrow reading of the Constitution and come to grips with reality; i.e. EO’s are legal, covered by any president’s “executive powers” that you overlooked and have been used by every president in memory. Try a Google search using the key phrase constitutionality of executive orders or you can use this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/11/18/constitution
Beyond the foregoing, your last post contains both misconceptions and factual errors: (1) House and Senate majorities do NOT guarantee passage of anything so long as the “loyal opposition” has the power of the filibuster. Try a Google search of “GOP use of filibuster Obama presidency”. (2) the national debt doubled under GWB from $5 to $10 T. It now stands at just over $17 T. There is no math that makes that a “doubling”. (3) Since Obama added $7+ T to the nat’l debt and GWB $5 T, do you really think that the former added more than all other presidents combined? You are in serious need of engaging in some fact-checking of the sources of what you think is valid information.
Your Tea Party fav’s play a game with immigration; i.e. we’ll legislate when you control the border. But, they like you, refuse to define what constitutes a level of control sufficient to get the same reps to take up their legislative responsibility. So it’s always “control the border first and then we’ll legislate. But we won’t define what ‘control’ means”.
I’ll give you this: You are expert at parroting what I hear every conservative talking head in or out of gov’t say.
If I’m parroting like a conservative, then you are misleading like a liberal.
I never said all EO’s are illegal, or that other presidents didn’t use them. That’s misrepresenting what I typed. What I said, over and over again, and the key point of my comments, is that Obama’s EO on immigration is illegal.
The truly sad part is that Obama, and liberals, don’t care if it’s legal or not. Once it’s in place they know it’ll be next to impossible to reverse. That’s the real sham on the american public.
I’m also very aware of filibusters. I think it’s funny that you focus on the GOP, and especially the (evil) Tea Party, obstructionism, but never talk about the biggest obstructive force in Congress. The (prior) Senate Leader, Harry Reid (D). How many bills were passed in the House that Reid never brought up for a vote in the Senate because a) he didn’t want his fellow Dems to look bad, or b) he didn’t want Obama to look bad, or c) all of the above? Google Harry Reid obstructionist, and/or how many House bills he refused to go to vote in the Senate. Yet we never hear about Harry Reid’s (non)actions over and over and over again in the media like we do about those evil Republicans.
Meanwhile, a group of elected officials (Tea Party), who ran for office on a platform of fiscal responsibility and repealing Obamacare, get chastised in the media as “obstructionists” for doing (voting) just that. Amazing!
Who’s the real “obstructionist,” a few Tea Party members, or Harry Reid (D)?
You’re also misleading in stating the national debt today is “just over $17 T.” Today it is “estimated” to be $18.4 T. I say “estimated,” because nobody knows what the real debt number is since the Fed Govt stopped reporting it since mid-March. That’s comforting isn’t it?
By all estimates, at the end of Obama’s term it’ll be inching towards $20 T. So O.K. if you want to split hairs, no it won’t “exactly” be double. It was ~$10 T when Obama took office, and he will have added another ~$10 T while in office. Hmmmm, that’s pretty dang close to doubling, and pretty dang close to increasing the debt more in 8 years than all of the presidents before him. Quite an achievement. Yipppee!
I also won’t even go into what the debt would’ve been if Obama had his way with his proposed budgets. That’s way too frightening.
You still haven’t explained why you’re so opposed to enforcing the law? Or any arguments as to why the GOP should ignore history (IRCA)?
Your continued insistence that Obama’s EO is “illegal” remains prejudical and premature, something you can’t admit to. The matter is before the courts it will be decided with finality, not by you and your narrow reading of the Constitution, especially as regards EO’s. I am prepared to accept the court’s ruling. Are you, especially if it runs against your position?
You must share with me, how and when you acquired the metaphysical ability to penetrate Harry Reid’s mind and discern his motive(s) for tabling the various “small-ball” jobs bills that were passed by the House. As a matter of fact, when you read those bills, you discover that they really aren’t aimed at DIRECTLY creating jobs. Rather, they provide for tax breaks that then are hoped to lead to job creation, though there is no guarantee that they will.
No “loyal opposition” in memory over-used the filibuster like the GOP from 2008 to 2010. That is now a matter of record.
As for your defense of the House Tea Party Caucus, I have no problem with them representing their constituencies. But, when that representation flies in the face of a majority position and it leads to a subversion of the fundamental democratic principle of “the majority rules”, we have dysfunction. That point seems to be lost on you.
Finally, there is the national debt. I was pleased to see you abandoning your “doubling” claim in favor of making an argument based on 2016 numbers. And, since you’re in a revisionist mode, do be sure to factor in the cost of GWB’s two wars that he kept OFF the books only to have Obama put them back on. Wait; you didn’t know that?
In closing, I’ll support the law when it is determined by the courts that Obama’s EO is illegal. Till then, I continue to await your definitive word on what constitutes an acceptable level of the interdiction at the border of illegal crossings.
The mere fact that you don’t understand why a group of elected officials are demanding measurable accountability of our govt to stop the flow of hundreds of thousands of illegals every year across our border before voting for an immigration bill is mind blowing. Zero accountability within our govt (legislative and executive) is the reason why citizens (who are paying attention) are so sick of Wash. DC.
The only other segment in society that has a similar lack of accountability is academia. But that discussion is for another opinion piece.
What I understand is that bipartisan majorities in the Senator and House are prepared to pass a comprehensive immigration bill that includes border security and the very accountability that is such an issue for you. But, those majorities are being thwarted by a minority of House members who are being kowtowed to by the feckless John Boehner who is desperate to preserve some semblance of party unity while holding onto the Speakership.
I just came across a great article by author, and Cal State Fresno professor, Victor Davis Hanson. It outlines the hypocrisy and flat-out deception re. the immigration issue. Recommended for anyone who’s only heard what the media, and/or your liberal professors fed you.
“How Illegal Immigration Finally Turned Off the Public.”
http://victorhanson.com/wordpress/?p=8628
Max: Your link didn’t work but I was able to access and read Hansen’s op-ed. Happy to see that you find at least one sane, non-hypocritical voice in academic. Maybe you can reference Hanson in a footnote when you expound on the “lack of accountability” in that environment.
There’s a lot of emotion in Hanson’s text and I always wonder about the extent to which affect distorts one’s critical thinking; sometimes driving to excesses that are hard to justify. For example, Hanson refers to “so many Americans” but later becomes more expansive with the use of “the public.
All this said, I found the article informative and more appeal than repelling.
Now that we’ve had our exchange about Hanson’s screed, let’s get back to: 1) that bipartisan majority in both houses that want to pass a comprehensive immigration bill and the 50-odd reps who have blocked that from happening; and 2) my repeated request that you specify a standard by which we can judge the effectiveness of illegal southern border crossing interdiction.
Oh God yes, let’s build a wall that will stretch the nearly 2,000 miles from Tiajuana to Matamoros. Twenty feet tall? Not high enough so make it 30. Tunneling? Better sink it to a depth of 20 feet. Cost? Why taxpayers will gladly cover it, no matter how great. Get your spleen under control, your head out of your ass and try thinking for a change.