Anonymous wrote:It is all on the Republicans. Anything that is or is not done; anything that is not solved or fixed. No more excuses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Name one immigration bill that the Democrats have filibustered?


Actually name one immigration bill the Republicans have put on the floor?


What the Republican base never seems to realize is that the Republicans don't want to change immigration.

The current rules are fine. They just need to be enforced.

So why aren't the Republicans enforcing the laws?

$$$$$. It's all about that money. It really not hard to understand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. Re: the bolded, this is very true. And why aren't the Democrats/liberals "whining" or outraged about illegal (NOT undocumented) immigrants? Because they're too busy pandering to them and making sure they feel welcome in this country. They protest against ending sanctuary cities. They refuse to admit that illegal immigrants are here ILLEGALLY. In short, they're defending people who are breaking the law. I have zero respect for anyone who feel some people should get a pass when it comes to obeying the law. They are utter hypocrites.

OK. So, why aren't the Republicans doing something about it?

It's already been answered several times, so stop asking. Liberals are blocking their efforts every step of the way. I'm just glad that Rep. Barbara Comstock introduced a bill to immediately deport gang members. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/house-passes-comstock-bill-targeting-immigrant-members-of-ms-13-gang/2017/09/14/71e97ce0-9956-11e7-b569-3360011663b4_story.html?utm_term=.599fb59e32e2
But, oh look!
"The bill was slammed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued it would promote racial profiling, erode due process and unintentionally affect others, such as clergy who try to help gang members." And this:

"Democrats speaking against the bill said they agreed there must be a way to curtail MS-13, but Comstock’s bill would have unintended consequences and face legal challenges.
“We all agree MS-13 is a problem and I think she’d be better served by working in a bipartisan manner to find a responsible solution rather than doing something on her own that’s probably dead on arrival in the Senate,” Beyer said after the vote.
Immigrant advocates objected to the bill, saying it would give law enforcement wide latitude in designating groups of people as gangs and seeking to deport, detain or block their asylum before a crime has been committed.
“This feels just like yet another barely thinly veiled attempt to criminalize and demonize immigrants in order to justify what this administration has consistently promoted as their commitment to a massive deportation regime,” said Avideh Moussavian, a senior policy attorney at the National Immigration Law Center.

So you see, despite the best efforts of Republicans, liberals just can't stop themselves from declaring even deportation of MS-13 members, somehow wrong. So liberals - take a good look in the mirror at exactly what's stopping our immigration laws from being enforced. You.

Don't have enough R votes, eh? Isn't that what you meant to say?

Here's a question for you: why do you defend illegal immigration and sanctuary cities? Why do you support law breakers? We'll wait.

Anonymous wrote:Democrats approach to "fixing" immigration is to grant amnesty to the 11 million + who are in the country illegally.

They rationalize it with comments about it being humane, strict border controls in the future, some sort of fine and a multi-year wait for citizenship.

But ultimately the goal is to grant everyone legal residence to satisfy the Hispanic lobby and to ensure that their voting bloc of Hispanics increases. To hell with the law and any sense of fairness to those who waited years to enter the country legally.

Anonymous wrote:

There is a guy out there on the internet who applies the idea of r/k selection theory to the political left and right. Arguably he has the best explanation for why the left seems to prioritize from the outgroup rather than the national ingroup as being biologically successful when a R strategist moves to a new population or see an influx of foreigners into their nation as the R selected individual is conflict averse (and if the R selected individual desires conflict will use governmental power rather than their own physical power to intervene on their behalf).

In an R selected environment, resources are plentiful. Since group competition will not arise in the r-selected environment, r-type organisms will not exhibit loyalty to fellow members of their species, or a drive to sacrifice on their behalf. Indeed, the very notion of in-group will be foreign, and the concept of personal sacrifice for other in-group members will be wholly alien. This is why rabbits, mice, antelope, and other r-selected species, although pleasant, will tend to not exhibit any loyalty or emotional attachment to peers. When resources are freely available, group competition is a risk one need not engage in to acquire resources, so this loyalty to in-group and emotional attachment to peers is not favored.

In a resource limited environment, or K selected environment, the K type will embrace competitions between individuals and accept disparities in competitive outcomes as an innate part of the world, that is not to be challenged. Since individuals who do not fight for some portion of the limited resources will starve, this environment will favor an innately competitive, conflict-prone psychology. Study shows, such a psychology will also tend to embrace monogamy, embrace chastity until monogamous adulthood, and favor high-investment, two-parent parenting, with an emphasis upon rearing as successful an offspring as possible. This sexual selectiveness, mate monopolization, and high-investment rearing is all a form of competing to produce fitter offspring than peers. This evolves, because if one’s offspring are fitter than the offspring of peers, they will be likely to acquire limited resources themselves, and reproduce successfully.

Modern politics could easily be described as conflict between these two strategies.

Anonymous wrote:

There is a guy out there on the internet who applies the idea of r/k selection theory to the political left and right. Arguably he has the best explanation for why the left seems to prioritize from the outgroup rather than the national ingroup as being biologically successful when a R strategist moves to a new population or see an influx of foreigners into their nation as the R selected individual is conflict averse (and if the R selected individual desires conflict will use governmental power rather than their own physical power to intervene on their behalf).

In an R selected environment, resources are plentiful. Since group competition will not arise in the r-selected environment, r-type organisms will not exhibit loyalty to fellow members of their species, or a drive to sacrifice on their behalf. Indeed, the very notion of in-group will be foreign, and the concept of personal sacrifice for other in-group members will be wholly alien. This is why rabbits, mice, antelope, and other r-selected species, although pleasant, will tend to not exhibit any loyalty or emotional attachment to peers. When resources are freely available, group competition is a risk one need not engage in to acquire resources, so this loyalty to in-group and emotional attachment to peers is not favored.

In a resource limited environment, or K selected environment, the K type will embrace competitions between individuals and accept disparities in competitive outcomes as an innate part of the world, that is not to be challenged. Since individuals who do not fight for some portion of the limited resources will starve, this environment will favor an innately competitive, conflict-prone psychology. Study shows, such a psychology will also tend to embrace monogamy, embrace chastity until monogamous adulthood, and favor high-investment, two-parent parenting, with an emphasis upon rearing as successful an offspring as possible. This sexual selectiveness, mate monopolization, and high-investment rearing is all a form of competing to produce fitter offspring than peers. This evolves, because if one’s offspring are fitter than the offspring of peers, they will be likely to acquire limited resources themselves, and reproduce successfully.

Modern politics could easily be described as conflict between these two strategies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. Re: the bolded, this is very true. And why aren't the Democrats/liberals "whining" or outraged about illegal (NOT undocumented) immigrants? Because they're too busy pandering to them and making sure they feel welcome in this country. They protest against ending sanctuary cities. They refuse to admit that illegal immigrants are here ILLEGALLY. In short, they're defending people who are breaking the law. I have zero respect for anyone who feel some people should get a pass when it comes to obeying the law. They are utter hypocrites.

OK. So, why aren't the Republicans doing something about it?

It's already been answered several times, so stop asking. Liberals are blocking their efforts every step of the way. I'm just glad that Rep. Barbara Comstock introduced a bill to immediately deport gang members. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/house-passes-comstock-bill-targeting-immigrant-members-of-ms-13-gang/2017/09/14/71e97ce0-9956-11e7-b569-3360011663b4_story.html?utm_term=.599fb59e32e2
But, oh look!
"The bill was slammed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued it would promote racial profiling, erode due process and unintentionally affect others, such as clergy who try to help gang members." And this:

"Democrats speaking against the bill said they agreed there must be a way to curtail MS-13, but Comstock’s bill would have unintended consequences and face legal challenges.
“We all agree MS-13 is a problem and I think she’d be better served by working in a bipartisan manner to find a responsible solution rather than doing something on her own that’s probably dead on arrival in the Senate,” Beyer said after the vote.
Immigrant advocates objected to the bill, saying it would give law enforcement wide latitude in designating groups of people as gangs and seeking to deport, detain or block their asylum before a crime has been committed.
“This feels just like yet another barely thinly veiled attempt to criminalize and demonize immigrants in order to justify what this administration has consistently promoted as their commitment to a massive deportation regime,” said Avideh Moussavian, a senior policy attorney at the National Immigration Law Center.

So you see, despite the best efforts of Republicans, liberals just can't stop themselves from declaring even deportation of MS-13 members, somehow wrong. So liberals - take a good look in the mirror at exactly what's stopping our immigration laws from being enforced. You.

Don't have enough R votes, eh? Isn't that what you meant to say?

Here's a question for you: why do you defend illegal immigration and sanctuary cities? Why do you support law breakers? We'll wait.

Anonymous wrote:Why do people keep posting and complaining about immigration? The president is Republican, the Senate and House are majority Republican and you can get whatever you want passed without the Democrats.

So fix it the way you want it and stop posting and complaining about it!

Anything that is not getting done is your fault, Republicans. Do SOMETHING.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. Re: the bolded, this is very true. And why aren't the Democrats/liberals "whining" or outraged about illegal (NOT undocumented) immigrants? Because they're too busy pandering to them and making sure they feel welcome in this country. They protest against ending sanctuary cities. They refuse to admit that illegal immigrants are here ILLEGALLY. In short, they're defending people who are breaking the law. I have zero respect for anyone who feel some people should get a pass when it comes to obeying the law. They are utter hypocrites.

OK. So, why aren't the Republicans doing something about it?

It's already been answered several times, so stop asking. Liberals are blocking their efforts every step of the way. I'm just glad that Rep. Barbara Comstock introduced a bill to immediately deport gang members. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/house-passes-comstock-bill-targeting-immigrant-members-of-ms-13-gang/2017/09/14/71e97ce0-9956-11e7-b569-3360011663b4_story.html?utm_term=.599fb59e32e2
But, oh look!
"The bill was slammed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued it would promote racial profiling, erode due process and unintentionally affect others, such as clergy who try to help gang members." And this:

"Democrats speaking against the bill said they agreed there must be a way to curtail MS-13, but Comstock’s bill would have unintended consequences and face legal challenges.
“We all agree MS-13 is a problem and I think she’d be better served by working in a bipartisan manner to find a responsible solution rather than doing something on her own that’s probably dead on arrival in the Senate,” Beyer said after the vote.
Immigrant advocates objected to the bill, saying it would give law enforcement wide latitude in designating groups of people as gangs and seeking to deport, detain or block their asylum before a crime has been committed.
“This feels just like yet another barely thinly veiled attempt to criminalize and demonize immigrants in order to justify what this administration has consistently promoted as their commitment to a massive deportation regime,” said Avideh Moussavian, a senior policy attorney at the National Immigration Law Center.

So you see, despite the best efforts of Republicans, liberals just can't stop themselves from declaring even deportation of MS-13 members, somehow wrong. So liberals - take a good look in the mirror at exactly what's stopping our immigration laws from being enforced. You.

Don't have enough R votes, eh? Isn't that what you meant to say?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Name one immigration bill that the Democrats have filibustered?


Actually name one immigration bill the Republicans have put on the floor?


What the Republican base never seems to realize is that the Republicans don't want to change immigration.

This.

No immigration bills are needed. Just enforce existing laws.

So, why aren't the Republicans doing that?

Because their donors don't want it.

Their base wants it, but republicans listen to those who shove $$$ in their pockets.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First liberals have to give up sanctuary cities and protections for dreamers....

+1000
"Why aren't Republicans enforcing the laws?" asks a PP. THIS IS WHY. ^^^^
If you want Republicans to enforce immigration laws, liberals are going to first have to back down on their rabid support for sanctuary cities and DACA. Personally, I was fine with giving Dreamers the right to stay here. That is, until I saw the video of them shouting over Nancy Pelosi and insisting all 11 million illegal immigrants be granted amnesty. I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for entitled, arrogant people demanding rights that aren't even theirs to demand.

How are the Democrats stopping the Republicans from enforcing the laws?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

NP. Re: the bolded, this is very true. And why aren't the Democrats/liberals "whining" or outraged about illegal (NOT undocumented) immigrants? Because they're too busy pandering to them and making sure they feel welcome in this country. They protest against ending sanctuary cities. They refuse to admit that illegal immigrants are here ILLEGALLY. In short, they're defending people who are breaking the law. I have zero respect for anyone who feel some people should get a pass when it comes to obeying the law. They are utter hypocrites.

OK. So, why aren't the Republicans doing something about it?

It's already been answered several times, so stop asking. Liberals are blocking their efforts every step of the way. I'm just glad that Rep. Barbara Comstock introduced a bill to immediately deport gang members. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/house-passes-comstock-bill-targeting-immigrant-members-of-ms-13-gang/2017/09/14/71e97ce0-9956-11e7-b569-3360011663b4_story.html?utm_term=.599fb59e32e2
But, oh look!
"The bill was slammed by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued it would promote racial profiling, erode due process and unintentionally affect others, such as clergy who try to help gang members." And this:

"Democrats speaking against the bill said they agreed there must be a way to curtail MS-13, but Comstock’s bill would have unintended consequences and face legal challenges.
“We all agree MS-13 is a problem and I think she’d be better served by working in a bipartisan manner to find a responsible solution rather than doing something on her own that’s probably dead on arrival in the Senate,” Beyer said after the vote.
Immigrant advocates objected to the bill, saying it would give law enforcement wide latitude in designating groups of people as gangs and seeking to deport, detain or block their asylum before a crime has been committed.
“This feels just like yet another barely thinly veiled attempt to criminalize and demonize immigrants in order to justify what this administration has consistently promoted as their commitment to a massive deportation regime,” said Avideh Moussavian, a senior policy attorney at the National Immigration Law Center.

So you see, despite the best efforts of Republicans, liberals just can't stop themselves from declaring even deportation of MS-13 members, somehow wrong. So liberals - take a good look in the mirror at exactly what's stopping our immigration laws from being enforced. You.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First liberals have to give up sanctuary cities and protections for dreamers....

But what about States Rights?
Isn't that the core of the GOP's principle?
Isn't that the root of the Southern Strategy?

Article I, Section 8, clause 4 of the Con­stitution entrusts the federal legislative branch with the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” This clear textual command for uniformity establishes that the federal government, specifically Congress, is responsible for crafting the laws that determine how and when noncitizens can become nat­uralized citizens of the United States. But control over naturalization does not necessarily require full control over immigration. And indeed, for the first century of the United States’ existence, many states enacted laws regulating and controlling immigration into their own borders. Various states passed laws aimed at preventing a variety of populations from entering the borders of their states (which appear to have some support from the 9/10th amendments), including individuals with criminal records, people reliant on public assistance, slaves, and free blacks.

I personally don't have much of a problem with sanctuary cities (unless their actions are in conflict with the law), but I don't see much of a problem with the federal government withholding funds either for non-compliance. Then again, I'm just an unhinged libertarian.

States aren't responsible for deporting illegal immigrants. Some of the county/city jails are overflowing. They prefer to make room for violent criminals rather than people who overstayed their visas. I for one am happy that states focus on these violent criminals (regardless of status) rather than a nonviolent one.