@NeilMcKenna My post below with space between the paragraphs.
@NeilMcKenna Although it showed up for a while, they seem to have taken down the reply I sent you on the new Resurgent website. The new Resurgent website does not seem to have a spot for starting new conversations, so I think this our back and forth discussion may be coming to an end. But I thank you for your honest discourse about our very different opinions. I am posting it here, in case you want to read it:
@NeilMcKenna Our old exchange did not make it over with the Resurgent transition. This is a reply to your post 4 days ago on the Maven.com version of Erick's post. After the transition, my new id is @dmk8591 rather than the @DavidMKern that I was posting as.
I would prefer to separate our debate about border control issues, from other issues such as Trump’s alleged criminality or the crisis of climate change. As I have repeatedly stated in other posts, focusing on other issues will do nothing to fix real border control problems. If we want to debate non-border issues, we should seek to find someplace other than Erick's border control articles to do it.
As to Trump’s criminality, I would prefer that Trump’s critics wait for him to be indicted/convicted of a crime before advocating for him to be hung for treason live on CNN (with play-by-play done by Jim Acosta for a figurative – and perhaps literal – hanging ceremony). Although many of Trump’s critics accuse him of being a dictator, they are the ones who are abandoning “innocent until proven guilty” in seeking to eliminate a political opponent. As I recall, Comey said that Trump is not a target of the investigation. In practical terms, this was an outright lie, as Trump has been the one and only true target of the investigation from long before it was placed under Mueller’s control (i.e., the witch the hunters hope to exterminate). If the investigation was really about Russian collusion by a political campaign, then Hillary would be in prison for her campaign paying Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS to hire Russian sources to create a dossier with unprovable accusations implicating Trump. The FBI people in charge of the Russian collusion investigation relied on this Russian-supplied information to get a FISA warrant to survey people in the Trump campaign, which means the investigators are actually more guilty of the crime they were investigating than Trump is.
As to climate change, are you aware the EPA reported that “that total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions reported decreased by 2.7 percent from 2016 to 2017.” Are you aware that “Preliminary estimates published today in the European Environment Agency’s (EEA) annual ‘trends and projections’ assessments show a 0.6% emissions increase in 2017 from 2016?” In other words, the US is doing more to reduce carbon emissions than EU countries, despite Trump withdrawing from the Paris Climate accord.
On the global warming debate, there are lots of factual reasons that people (including many reputable scientists) are skeptical. We could attempt to have a serious discussion about the reasons for this skepticism. Or I could suggest numerous proposals that would make sense if global warming alarmism was really something to be feared. For example, if the science of climate change is truly settled, it would make sense to abort any further climate research, and devote these funds to paying carbon offsets to subsidize reduced carbon production. After all, Al Gore's Doomsday clock expired 3 years ago, and we are already past the point of no return for saving our planet. The only question now is how long we can survive before the catastrophe kills us all. If one takes global warming alarmism seriously, this is the most logical thing to do.
However, I am a climate change skeptic and I don’t subscribe to Bernie Sander’s view that climate change is “the biggest crisis of all.” To rebut that ridiculous nature of that extreme viewpoint, I offer you this tongue in cheek proposal in both the mocking spirit of a climate change skeptic and the terrified spirit of a global warming alarmist. Because climate change is so catastrophic, logic dictates that it should take precedence over all other environmental issues. According to Reuters, just “6.6 percent of [the EPA’s] workforce” are considered essential employees. Because non-essential EPA employees are certainly worth sacrificing to avoid the “biggest crisis of all,” I propose permanently removing 93.4% of the EPA’s staff. We could then agree to use ½ of the budget savings to combat each of our crisis (with your half going to combat the crisis of climate change and my half being used to combat the border control crisis). Your side would get to help save the world from climate change and my side would get to implement border control that works. The non-essential EPA employees could also take the essential jobs of the millions of illegal immigrants that Trump would remove via “catch and deport.”
Returning to fully serious mode, there are compromises to be made on border security that would not only hinder illegal immigration but also help illegal immigrants who are already in the US (such as DACA recipients) and end the need for sanctuary cities protecting criminals (who don’t deserve sanctuary simply because they are illegal aliens). I am sure Trump is willing to bargain. But according to everybody involved, including Nancy/Chuck, the Democrats are not willing to lay any offers on the table.
In a January 11 tweet, Trump posted a picture of a 30 foot bollard wall that was recently installed. If you examine that photo, I think you will agree that a barrier of this type will prevent most immigrants from even trying to illegally cross the southern border. According to a Fox News report, the Border Patrol Chief under Obama said border walls “Absolutely Work.” The current Border Patrol management makes the same argument. If wall critics dispute the effectiveness of a border barrier, then they should make that argument rather than focusing on bashing Trump. I appreciate that you are not like the typical border wall critic in that you are at least willing to discuss sharp areas of disagreements in the hope of finding a reasonable win-win compromise. But I think part of you is still deeply infected with a “bash Trump addiction,” which will not lead to a resolution of the budget stalemate or do anything to fix the real problems of a porous border and millions of undocumented immigrants. Note, that this is not an argument about whether there are good reasons to bash Trump, which is a debate best decided by the 2020 election.
I care about the plight of illegal immigrants, which is why I have taken the time to discuss this issue with you in detail. The current porous border is enriching the drug cartels and encouraging more immigrants to undertake a long and dangerous journey with severe abuse being common. Mexico and the Central American countries have enormous problems with organized crime that make the mafia atrocities of Al Capone look like child’s play. Building a border barrier will slow the flow of drugs and human trafficking and rob the drug cartels of a major source of revenue. This will in turn reduce the drug cartels power and hinder their ability to corrupt political leaders with bribes. There are other things that can be done to attack the problem at the source. But as long as half of America only wants to focus on attacking Trump, the horrible status quo will not change. When all is said and done, and the thoughts and attitudes of our hearts are judged, I would rather be on the side seeking to solve the border control problems than on the side that places a hatred of Trump above all else.