Trump Sends 70-Point Immigration Bill to Comgress

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about birthright citizenship? I knew a family who had at least 10 tourist visa visitors give birth.

There are also birthright tourism companies that bring an illegal to the states in her 9th month, she gives birth to an anchor baby, and then they both go home. Now if things go south for the family, he's a U.S. citizen and moves back here to get welfare benefits, food stamps, etc. It's almost like an insurance policy.

Where did all you weird ass, staunch conservatives come from? I know you all like simplistic answers for complex issues. It's evident in your posts. But are you idiots even posting from dc? This is a forum for dc urban moms and dads. People who aren't flyover state rubes. Are you those people? Are you posting from a sh*tty state where your stupid arguments hold water? You'd get laughed out of the beltway if you actually lived in dc.

All you people do when presented with a questionable practice like birthright tourism companies - designed to help illegals exploit the system and get U.S. benefits for their babies - is personally denigrate the person who brought up the practice? And, FYI, I am a native Washingtonian, and other than my college years (in a liberal NE state), have always lived here.

So tell me....you disagree that we should shut down these birthright tourism groups? Or would you prefer to continue to defend illegals who seek to exploit the country's antiquated anchor laws and instead insult law-abiding, taxpaying Americans? Hint: Your answer is why yoU LOST.

I don't think anyone disagrees with shutting these down. And when they are found, they are shut down. You see people saying DACA should become law. I've never heard anyone say that they are okay with birth tourism. I do think it is very hard to stop. But we should try. Send women who have not given birth back to their native countries. Accept that the women who have given birth now have little US citizens (because the Constitution), and prosecute the people who run these scams.

Are you hearing hoards of liberals say something different? That they fully support birth tourism.

Also, it is not an"antiquated anchor law". It's an antiquated CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Which means we have to follow it and it is very hard to change. I have no problem with people trying, but I think it will be tough to get enough states to ratify given the high immigrant populations of some. You can't just ignore or dismiss the pieces of the constitution you disagree with. And birthright citizenship is the 15th amendment. So, there is that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 70 point immigration plan. FFS. Laws about complex issues are complex. I mean-- Trumps haven't been. But in the real government they are. But only Trump would want to make sure he got credit for coming up with 70 points (not 68!!!!!).

70 points! People are saying that no immigration plan has ever been so big!

It's YUUGGEE. (It's also largely recycled). But YUUGGEE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we just get rid of all the ESOL kids in FFX so I can send my kids to the local school I'm paying out of the nose in taxes for?

Sure. But since schools can't ask about citizenship, and many of these kids are citizens, how do you propose we go about doing this?

Oh, wait, that's right-- many of these ESOL kids are citizens or green card holders or otherwise here legally. So no. Your kid is stuck in a school with brown people. Sorry. I'm sure it's traumatic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we just get rid of all the ESOL kids in FFX so I can send my kids to the local school I'm paying out of the nose in taxes for?

I hear that is already happening in fcps. Major drop in esols this year. Like 33% of last year

"People are saying...."? I call BS. Cite this or STFU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we just get rid of all the ESOL kids in FFX so I can send my kids to the local school I'm paying out of the nose in taxes for?

Xenophobe.

No, really. Just an Illegal-phobe.

No. Xenophobe is right. Many of the ESOL kids are here legally. And there is absolutely no way to tell the legal ones from the illegal ones.

If you are going to be a bigot, just own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we just get rid of all the ESOL kids in FFX so I can send my kids to the local school I'm paying out of the nose in taxes for?

Sure. But since schools can't ask about citizenship, and many of these kids are citizens, how do you propose we go about doing this?

Oh, wait, that's right-- many of these ESOL kids are citizens or green card holders or otherwise here legally. So no. Your kid is stuck in a school with brown people. Sorry. I'm sure it's traumatic.

Hey, I'm an English speaking brown person looking for a good education for my kids. And I know going to my school MUST be traumatic because allllll of you white Liberal hypocrites move out of my neighborhood or pay for private for your kids because y'all don't want your white kids going with the ESOL kids either. What do you know, Liberals are hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we just get rid of all the ESOL kids in FFX so I can send my kids to the local school I'm paying out of the nose in taxes for?

Xenophobe.

No, really. Just an Illegal-phobe.

No. Xenophobe is right. Many of the ESOL kids are here legally. And there is absolutely no way to tell the legal ones from the illegal ones.

If you are going to be a bigot, just own it.

Nope. Just want the illegals out. I guarantee you my school's rating will go up significantly. I know the truth hurts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we just get rid of all the ESOL kids in FFX so I can send my kids to the local school I'm paying out of the nose in taxes for?

I hear that is already happening in fcps. Major drop in esols this year. Like 33% of last year

"People are saying...."? I call BS. Cite this or STFU.

I hope and pray this is true.

Look at all the triggered Liberals!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we just get rid of all the ESOL kids in FFX so I can send my kids to the local school I'm paying out of the nose in taxes for?

Sure. But since schools can't ask about citizenship, and many of these kids are citizens, how do you propose we go about doing this?

Oh, wait, that's right-- many of these ESOL kids are citizens or green card holders or otherwise here legally. So no. Your kid is stuck in a school with brown people. Sorry. I'm sure it's traumatic.

Easy. Allow them to ask for citizenship, green card, or Visa. Done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A 70 point immigration plan. FFS. Laws about complex issues are complex. I mean-- Trumps haven't been. But in the real government they are. But only Trump would want to make sure he got credit for coming up with 70 points (not 68!!!!!).

Complex laws on a complex issue? What is complex about a neighbor allowing her daughter plus nieces etc to stay in her house for birthright citizenship ? All flew over on tourist visas. I see no complexity in this NOR persons who overstayed tourist or student visas.

How complex is the ACA act funding public health clinics when patients are listed in reports as no insurance, Medicaid, private insurance etc? Then we look at the demographics. It's only complex because people came here and won't leave.

You may think a single example that you don't have all the facts about is simple to solve, and it may be. But a federal immigration policy that covers all the examples in the US, and balances the needs of US citizens, businesses, government entities and 50 different states with different populations, different politics and different needs is, in fact complex. And this is before you factor in lobbyists, the 4 yeR backlog of the immigration courts, and the millions of people already here that would just add to that backlog.

The situation with your neighbor may be easy. Call ICE and let them decide. But the situation in this country is complicated, and any solution will be complicated. And require everyone to compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hooray! Now THIS is the main issue that got Trump the win - reasonable laws that put American citizens before illegal immigrants, or immigrants in general, when determining who is admitted to our country, other than those seeking assylum (which must be better proven). While the proposal in its entirety might seem far-reaching, it's an excellent starting point for negotiations with the D's who want to protect DACA.

I'm sure the libsters will pick apart the points they disagree with (which will be many) and use this to viciously attack Trump voters once again, but....fellow conservatives....don't you believe much of this is just common sense?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/8/trump-send-70-point-immigration-enforcement-list-c/?ref=hvper.com

"hooray" indeed. You sound quite pleased, almost foaming at the mouth, at using the daca kids as leverage to build a useless, money wasting wall. This administration is inept and will fail at this, but keep writing long winded diatribes if it helps you get out your xenophobic wet dreams.

Anonymous wrote:
You guys know less than nothing about economics. There are more jobs and better economies in places that have immigrant workers than in places that do not; not just more jobs for the immigrants but for everyone. There are no places with sustained economic growth without immigrant labor.


sorry, you seemed to have failed the fundamental lesson of supply and demand. The only people that benefit from large immigration are corporate CEOs. There is no shortage of workers in US. There are bunch of corporations working the political system for their own profits, at the expense of workers.

"[To attract] workers, the employer may have to increase his wage offer. ... So when you hear an employer saying he needs immigrants to fill a "labor shortage'', remember what you are hearing: a cry for a labor subsidy to allow the employer to avoid the normal functioning of the labor market."

-1990 Congressional Testimony of Dr. Michael S. Teitelbaum

http://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhowandwhygovernment.pdf
[Report Post]

Any chance the unemployment rate was higher 27 years ago than it is today? Or that this country had different economic needs? You aren't going to get very far with 1990 economic testimony from now he guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we just get rid of all the ESOL kids in FFX so I can send my kids to the local school I'm paying out of the nose in taxes for?

I hear that is already happening in fcps. Major drop in esols this year. Like 33% of last year

"People are saying...."? I call BS. Cite this or STFU.

I hope and pray this is true.

Look at all the triggered Liberals!

It's an #AltFact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we just get rid of all the ESOL kids in FFX so I can send my kids to the local school I'm paying out of the nose in taxes for?

I hear that is already happening in fcps. Major drop in esols this year. Like 33% of last year

"People are saying...."? I call BS. Cite this or STFU.

I hope and pray this is true.

Look at all the triggered Liberals!

It's an #AltFact.

Who knows. You wish. Makes no sense though. Our schools have been turned into cesspools of failure just in the last 10 years. You can keep hoping for worse I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hooray! Now THIS is the main issue that got Trump the win - reasonable laws that put American citizens before illegal immigrants, or immigrants in general, when determining who is admitted to our country, other than those seeking assylum (which must be better proven). While the proposal in its entirety might seem far-reaching, it's an excellent starting point for negotiations with the D's who want to protect DACA.

I'm sure the libsters will pick apart the points they disagree with (which will be many) and use this to viciously attack Trump voters once again, but....fellow conservatives....don't you believe much of this is just common sense?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/8/trump-send-70-point-immigration-enforcement-list-c/?ref=hvper.com

"hooray" indeed. You sound quite pleased, almost foaming at the mouth, at using the daca kids as leverage to build a useless, money wasting wall. This administration is inept and will fail at this, but keep writing long winded diatribes if it helps you get out your xenophobic wet dreams.

Anonymous wrote:
You guys know less than nothing about economics. There are more jobs and better economies in places that have immigrant workers than in places that do not; not just more jobs for the immigrants but for everyone. There are no places with sustained economic growth without immigrant labor.


sorry, you seemed to have failed the fundamental lesson of supply and demand. The only people that benefit from large immigration are corporate CEOs. There is no shortage of workers in US. There are bunch of corporations working the political system for their own profits, at the expense of workers.

"[To attract] workers, the employer may have to increase his wage offer. ... So when you hear an employer saying he needs immigrants to fill a "labor shortage'', remember what you are hearing: a cry for a labor subsidy to allow the employer to avoid the normal functioning of the labor market."

-1990 Congressional Testimony of Dr. Michael S. Teitelbaum

http://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhowandwhygovernment.pdf
[Report Post]

Any chance the unemployment rate was higher 27 years ago than it is today? Or that this country had different economic needs? You aren't going to get very far with 1990 economic testimony from now he guy.

Read something other than bezos diary

The h1b law was pushed into prominence with bush 1990 law. We are about to change it significantly . This guy was testifying how the nsf was making things up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hooray! Now THIS is the main issue that got Trump the win - reasonable laws that put American citizens before illegal immigrants, or immigrants in general, when determining who is admitted to our country, other than those seeking assylum (which must be better proven). While the proposal in its entirety might seem far-reaching, it's an excellent starting point for negotiations with the D's who want to protect DACA.

I'm sure the libsters will pick apart the points they disagree with (which will be many) and use this to viciously attack Trump voters once again, but....fellow conservatives....don't you believe much of this is just common sense?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/8/trump-send-70-point-immigration-enforcement-list-c/?ref=hvper.com

"hooray" indeed. You sound quite pleased, almost foaming at the mouth, at using the daca kids as leverage to build a useless, money wasting wall. This administration is inept and will fail at this, but keep writing long winded diatribes if it helps you get out your xenophobic wet dreams.

Anonymous wrote:
You guys know less than nothing about economics. There are more jobs and better economies in places that have immigrant workers than in places that do not; not just more jobs for the immigrants but for everyone. There are no places with sustained economic growth without immigrant labor.


sorry, you seemed to have failed the fundamental lesson of supply and demand. The only people that benefit from large immigration are corporate CEOs. There is no shortage of workers in US. There are bunch of corporations working the political system for their own profits, at the expense of workers.

"[To attract] workers, the employer may have to increase his wage offer. ... So when you hear an employer saying he needs immigrants to fill a "labor shortage'', remember what you are hearing: a cry for a labor subsidy to allow the employer to avoid the normal functioning of the labor market."

-1990 Congressional Testimony of Dr. Michael S. Teitelbaum

http://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhowandwhygovernment.pdf
[Report Post]

Any chance the unemployment rate was higher 27 years ago than it is today? Or that this country had different economic needs? You aren't going to get very far with 1990 economic testimony from now he guy.

Read something other than bezos diary

The h1b law was pushed into prominence with bush 1990 law. We are about to change it significantly . This guy was testifying how the nsf was making things up

Who is we? Congress is paralyzed on immigration, just like every other issue. Trump's heartless list of talking points will make zero difference.