Meh, don’t get too excited. There’s a lot of negotiations to do before any of this is settled

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The GOP is singing its death knell with this. They really should have taken Graham-Durbin.

I think most GOP would be fine with this. I know I would. What most GOP wants is to stop the flow once and for all. The end to chain migration would also be a big plus. I think it also gets rid of the diversity lottery.

The problem in the past is that the Congress has voted for border security--but never appropriated the funds to finish the job. Sec Nielson said that she needs more personnel and this does that. She also needs to be able to send people back. If you come in and say the right words (taught by the coyotes) you get to stay.

I think the plan has promise. It is pretty much what I would like.

What you're referring to, is people sponsoring their family members for immigration. For example, I know somebody who came to the US as a child refugee from Vietnam. When she grew up, as a naturalized US citizen, she started on the long and expensive process of sponsoring her parents, her three siblings, and the siblings' spouses and children.

Do you think that's bad? Do you think that she should not have been allowed to do this? And if so, why?

There is no such thing as "chain migration" -- chains don't migrate. We're talking about people. The immigration of people.

NP. I think it's bad. If the people can't get in on their own merits, why do we want them here? What do they have to offer the country?

They might get a + in a column because they know someone here, but that's it. Having a relative would not be sufficient to allow someone to immigrate.

And here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_migration you can read up on why people call it chain migration and where the concept came from, since it seems to be troubling you.

DP.. what "merit" did your ancestors have that enabled them to come here? What about Trump's mother, who was a maid from Scotland?

Cool, we're deciding how to deal with things now based on how people did them here 300 and 400 years ago (when my ancestors came here)?

That's how you want to determine things?

Why not? That's how you gun lovers determine the 2nd amendment is still applicable to today's world.

Trump's mother immigrated here less than 100 years ago. What was her "merit"? Why did we allow Melania's family to immigrate here?

Bzzt, derailing, 10 yard penalty! Why assume someone criticizing your comment on what rules applied to one's ancestors is a gun lover? Are people who hate guns or are neutral about guns all committed to handling things now the way they were done hundreds of years ago?

And now rather than using my 400-300 year old ancestors, you want to use Melanie's when they immigrated? Ok.

Why do you think what the country allowed 50, 100 years ago is the standard by which we should judge what we do now?

Weren't we making people surgically sterile in that same time period? Do you really think the US was doing everything so spectacularly then that it doesn't bear reconsidering now?

The argument that we shouldn't be doing something that we did 300 or 400 years ago applies to situations other than immigration, ie, we don't need a militia, and we are not in danger of another British invasion. Therefore, we don't need people to have the right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms wasn't about a British invasion. It was about the right to overthrow your own government.

But yes, I agree that just claiming something worked hundreds of years ago is insufficient justification for why we should continue it now.

So, explain. Why are you against merit based immigration?

False. It was established within the context of a militia, and militia was defined in the Militia Act put into law by the Founding Fathers 6 months after the 2nd Amendment was ratified. The militia was for national defense and was answerable and accountable to the President as Commander In Chief.

For a colony that came to exist as a country after violently taking its independence.

You cannot separate that from our founding documents.

NO. That part was addressed with the part that was in the Constitution about representative government, which is something they didn't have when they were ruled by the British. If we don't like the people running our government, we vote them out of office, rather than shooting them.

They didn't have an entirely representative government, but they also made appeals to the parliament and King and those appeals were ignored. Because of this, we understood that even if we had a charter, even if we had an agreement with our government that our concerns and needs would be heard and addressed, that we can't be assured that people in power would hold up their end of the bargain. Read the Federalist papers. It's a good place to start.

Trump understands we need this amnesty. It’s just a question of how much he is going to charge the Democrats for it in the shape of a border wall.

Bets on another shutdown on February 9th?

Trump wants 25 billion for the wall in exchange for amnesty and citizenship for 1.8 million dreamers.

The Freedom Caucus will never go along with giving amnesty and citizenship.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans love Reagan=> Reagan gave illegals amnesty => Republicans love amnesty.

Oooh oooh!

Democrats love Bill Clinton => Clinton sexually harassed or raped women => Democrats love sexual harassment and rape!

Republicans seem to have learned from Reagan. If you give before you get, you'll never get. Reagan agreed to amnesty in exchange for strong border controls and enforcement. He believed in the negotiation, and was shown to be naive. If I were you, based on your comment above, I'd say that Republicans learned to never trust a Democrat because they're liars. I'm not you, so I'll just say Republicans learned to be more cautious about giving before getting.

ohhh ohhh!!!

Rs love Trump => Trump is a pu$$y grabber => Rs love pu$$y grabbers.

But, yea, past R POTUS have indeed granted amnesty, and many of the employers that higher illegal immigrants are indeed Rs, ie, farmers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Liberal heads explode!!! How do we tell voters we want to legalize ALL illegals AND have an OPEN BORDER.

Trump has outflanked them totally with generous DACA proposal plus wall.

What Dem politician said they wanted "open borders"? Are they looking to allow anyone to come without checking papers or have any border control at all? Do they want to get rid of ICE completely? And, no, "they seem to" is not proof that they do. If you say, "well they want amnesty", well, aren't some Rs wanting "amnesty", too. Reagan and both Bushes provided amnesty. By your definition, some Rs want "open borders", too?

If not "open borders" how do you describe people who don't want to limit immigration, to do away with the concept of "illegal" immigration, and all immigrants, whether they followed our legal processes or not, should be accepted and embraced?

Reagan accepted amnesty in exchange for more border protections, that were not followed up on - under both Democrats and Republicans. Reagan's acceptance of amnesty helped create this problem, which is part of why it's so challenging.

Are dems saying that they want zero cap on any immigration? That's not what I'm hearing. They are not advocating for removing all caps. They are against being discriminatory.

Are dems saying that there they don't want to call people undocumented immigrants, ie, illegal? I think some people take offense to the word "illegal" as it applies to a human being, but I don't think they mean it as a way of saying we want open borders? BTW,, I use the term illegal immigrants, because the immigrant is not legally in this country.

If dems aren't asking for border control to stop checking papers at the border, then no, they are not for open borders. Open borders applies to the 27 EU member states where their people can move from one country to another without being detained by the authorities.

Many of the Dems I hear are talking about not penalizing illegal immigrants. How is that maintaining legal, controlled immigration? What is the difference between open borders and not penalizing illegal immigrants (by sending them back to their country of origin)?

Indeed, then some of the Rs are for open borders, too, then based on your definition since 3 recent R POTUS provided amnesty to them.

Again, open border is like the EU. Do you understand how the EU works and the movement of its people?

I understand how the EU works. In practice, that is how we are functioning with illegal immigrants. If we don't deport people here illegally, how are we controlling our borders?

Not enforcing the law is not providing amnesty. Those here illegally are still technically here illegally and are subject to deportation. Amnesty would be granting them rights to be here, moving them to the front of the line ahead of everyone who's been following the rules.

No, clearly you don't understand how the EU borders work compared to our's. The EU allows for open borders between 27 countries. Technically, and practically, the US doesn't throw open its borders to any country. Practically, past presidents, Dems and Rs, have had to deal with the reality of illegal immigrants in this country, many of whom are farm workers, and without them, R farmers would go bankrupt.

If Rs were serious about kicking out all illegal immigrants, why isn't Trump directing ICE to go to the farms across the US and round them up? It would be so easy, like shooting fish in a barrel. But, no, Trump knows his R farmer base would not be happy, and he even told them that he wasn't going to go after them. Instead, ICE raids 7/11s and Greyhound buses. Seriously, how many illegal immigrants will they catch this way compared to raiding farms.

So, tell me why they don't go after farms if they are serious about rounding up illegal immigrants? So, ok, maybe you're right.. maybe Rs are being practical and allowing for open borders, at least where low skilled labor is concerned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Republicans love Reagan=> Reagan gave illegals amnesty => Republicans love amnesty.

Oooh oooh!

Democrats love Bill Clinton => Clinton sexually harassed or raped women => Democrats love sexual harassment and rape!

Republicans seem to have learned from Reagan. If you give before you get, you'll never get. Reagan agreed to amnesty in exchange for strong border controls and enforcement. He believed in the negotiation, and was shown to be naive. If I were you, based on your comment above, I'd say that Republicans learned to never trust a Democrat because they're liars. I'm not you, so I'll just say Republicans learned to be more cautious about giving before getting.

Are you 12? Rs did not learn from Reagan given that both Bushes also provided amnesty.

I say we go based on what this country needs - what industry do we need more workers for?

If you listen to Trump and the R farmers, that would be low skilled workers. There aren't enough of them apparently, which is why Trump increased those visas by another 15K in his first months of office.

If you listen to Trumpsters, we DON'T need highly skilled H1B workers who have college degrees. And why would we want more highly skilled workers to compete with our American college graduates for high paying jobs?

Maybe I'm getting the threads mixed up, but wasn't there a video of Tucker interviewing the entitled DACA adult? He asked her if she thinks it's generous of America to give illegals citizenship, and she said no.

THIS is who wants to be a citizen? Someone who not only shows a lack of appreciation for what Americans have done for her but shows such disdain for our country?

Spoiled entitled brats. But hey.....they are illegals, so Dema forgive them.