Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Democrats nominate a pro refugee/ illegal immigrant candidate they will lose.

There is no one who supports illegal immigrants, except for the DACA folks, who have about 80% support among voters.

Just because people are opposed to a wall doesn't mean they support illegal immigration.

Where is their plan or proposal in the face of the Trump/Miller team's flailing attempts at opposition to the Democratic position? One that would show that they're not just opposed to Trump, but that would acknowledge the need for a solution.

This moment, right now, is the Democrats' opportunity to be the hero.

Anonymous wrote:

My kids attend “these schools”. 60% of my kids’ ES is ESOL. We have a high FARMS rate. And you know what? It’s a great school. My kids are thriving. These newcomers have families who work hard - some with multiple jobs - and are invested in education. They love being in this country. These are the kids who will grow up to be contributors to their communities and this country, just like generations of immigrant children before them.

As a tax payer, this “support” doesn’t bother me. These are future teachers, doctors, plumbers, scientists. They’ll give back.

You know what does bother me in terms of freeloading? When taxpayers have to subsidize the healthcare and food intake for workers at incredibly wealthy companies like Wal Mart because the company pays people working full time dirt wages. Or tax cuts for billionaires who mine federal subsidies and tax payer paid infrastructure to build riches. That’s the kind of corporate welfare that every American should be outraged by because there is very little “trickle down” or benefit to anyone beyond a select number of shareholders.

But Trump and the GOP have very effectively kept their base focused on the “outrage” of desperate Latinos fleeing poverty and violence in Central America. Never mind that most illegal immigrants in this country are here because they overstayed their visas and came here through airports, not the southern border. Hence 54+ pages of this thread...

Have you monitored the attendance and drop out rate of FARMs students? By the time many hit secondary schools, grades and attendance fall and graduation is questionable.

This is a good article which talks about the truth behind the numbers - source.org/2017/poverty-poses-obstacle-to-100-percent-graduation-rate-expert-says/589190
Until poverty eliminated, schools won't graduate 100 percent of students, expert says

It focuses on CA, but we all know we have mini CAs in our area. And CA was mentioned as one of the "welcoming" states.

Russell Rumberger, a professor emeritus at UC Santa Barbara who directs the California Dropout Research Project, said poverty is too big an obstacle for some students to overcome. Although the graduation rate has increased, more than 50,000 students drop out of high school each year, he said.

. . .

Rumberger said Latino and other student groups who have historically lagged behind have made “remarkable” graduation gains, but he cautioned that “a high school diploma is really a blunt instrument and it doesn’t really tell us too much about what a student has learned.”

. . .

One of the concerns he wants to explore further is the rising use of “credit recovery” or online courses that students are taking in some districts, including Los Angeles Unified, to make up for more traditional semester-long courses that students may have failed.

“The rigor of that (credit recovery courses) is questionable,” he said, adding that districts still have a lot of discretion in what they require of students before giving them diplomas.

So your perspective is limited. I hate to burst your bubble. The information presented in this article only reinforces what's happening in our local schools.

It ain't working.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The nimbyism in this thread is breathtaking.

Yes, the MoCo teacher definitely doesn’t want any more brown kids in her class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it wasn’t Trumps idea, would sending people to the sanctuary cities be considered a punishment on the residents of those cities?

Not really if it were done in a respectful manner. Don’t just drop them off unannounced in the middle of the night. Which is exactly what Trump would want to do.

No one said anything about “unannounced in the middle of the night”. Talk about spinning a story in order to fear-monger. Hypocrites.

That's exactly what was proposed (and shot down by CBP)!! It's what you've been arguing is a brilliant idea for dozens of pages! Do you seriously no longer remember four days ago?

This exactly. I am sure communities all over the country would be willing to accept some refugees but it has to be handled properly. The federal government has to be a responsible partner and provide resources and send people in an organized manner so these communities can absorb them One of the rationales for sanctuary cities is local officials want to know who is living and working in their community. It is an imperfect way of trying to keep the community at large safe. So local police, health, social and education officials know as much as possible about the people living amongst them. What the administration is threatening to do fundamentally undermines this

Anonymous wrote:The nimbyism in this thread is breathtaking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it wasn’t Trumps idea, would sending people to the sanctuary cities be considered a punishment on the residents of those cities?

In other words, if this had been a Dem's idea, how would liberals be reacting to this measure?

great question

+1
DP. I pointed this out earlier in the thread. If AOC, for instance, had come up with this idea, liberals would be praising her to the heavens. The only variable here is that it was Trump's idea - and so it must be shot down immediately, preferably with as much outrage as possible.

Take the politics out of it and it bocomes a simple question.

Is relocating these people to the sanctuary cities a punishment or not? If so, what’s the point of sanctuary cities? If not, what’s the problem?

Why are you so fixated on “punishment”? Seek help for your anger issues.

I don’t think it’s a punishment. Others here keep saying it is, I’m asking why they think that.

Why do you care what random internet people think more than what the POTUS thinks?

Because what he thinks is irrelevant. If he thinks it’s a great idea, does it suddenly become a great idea.

It’s a simple question.

Is relocating these people to the sanctuary cities a punishment or not? If so, what’s the point of sanctuary cities? If not, what’s the problem?

Sad that people don’t care what the POTUS thinks now. I guess that’s what happens you morons put a POS in office.

Your question has been asked and answered dozens of time.

It really hasn't been answered.

I know I responded to this issue by stating that I don't care how Trump comes across. What he's said (although ICE pushed back) ruffled liberal feathers. The attack was on Trump's lack of concern for the Democratic party and for the illegal immigrants "rehoming."

Conservatives and moderates (which include Ind like me) have been preaching about filling an 8 oz glass with 12 oz. We all know that doesn't work. But while some Ds have been claiming that they want to restructure the immigration protocols, nothing concrete has been offered. Let's see detailed plans from D candidates. If the best they can do is talk about technology - e-Verify, for example - then they're toast.

Furthermore, the lack of awareness regarding how all issues are interconnected is astonishing. You want to vote for healthcare? That's affected by illegal immigrants using the system. (And I posted an article detailing how.) You want to decrease taxes? I don't know how that will happen either, as public services are funded by our taxes. When the need for social services increases b/c more people are entering illegally, guess who's paying? Education is your focus? ha! Public funding for education is an allocation that is manipulated by each system and each school, and the money flows toward the needs. So when your average student is ignored and not pushed to excel, don't cry.

There will come a point where people, the most liberal leaning, will begin to push back when their back yards are affected. It's all good on television until it becomes reality TV.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it wasn’t Trumps idea, would sending people to the sanctuary cities be considered a punishment on the residents of those cities?

In other words, if this had been a Dem's idea, how would liberals be reacting to this measure?

great question

+1
DP. I pointed this out earlier in the thread. If AOC, for instance, had come up with this idea, liberals would be praising her to the heavens. The only variable here is that it was Trump's idea - and so it must be shot down immediately, preferably with as much outrage as possible.

Take the politics out of it and it bocomes a simple question.

Is relocating these people to the sanctuary cities a punishment or not? If so, what’s the point of sanctuary cities? If not, what’s the problem?

Why are you so fixated on “punishment”? Seek help for your anger issues.

I don’t think it’s a punishment. Others here keep saying it is, I’m asking why they think that.

Why do you care what random internet people think more than what the POTUS thinks?

Because what he thinks is irrelevant. If he thinks it’s a great idea, does it suddenly become a great idea.

It’s a simple question.

Is relocating these people to the sanctuary cities a punishment or not? If so, what’s the point of sanctuary cities? If not, what’s the problem?

Sad that people don’t care what the POTUS thinks now. I guess that’s what happens you morons put a POS in office.

Your question has been asked and answered dozens of time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In Democrats nominate a pro refugee/ illegal immigrant candidate they will lose.

There is no one who supports illegal immigrants, except for the DACA folks, who have about 80% support among voters.

Just because people are opposed to a wall doesn't mean they support illegal immigration.

Anonymous wrote:In Democrats nominate a pro refugee/ illegal immigrant candidate they will lose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Liberal hypocrisy was called out before 2016, but it's been growing stronger and stronger.

So, because of this liberal hypocrisy "call out", the Dems took 40 seats in the House in 2018 and now have control of it. Yep, it's been growing stronger and stronger.

You hear the hypocrisy on this thread.

And when people vote, they'll vote with a PRIORITY. So while your "Hate Free Zone" neighbor is preaching about how horrible Trump is, you will never really know how s/he voted.

No D will win unless s/he has a strong immigration platform that will address the safety concerns many Americans have.

This much I know.

You don’t know much, then.

In terms of priorities, most middle and working class Americans are prioritizing healthcare, jobs, and affordable housing.

Immigration is only a fixation for Trump’s base because he’s used it as a wedge and fanned the flames of xenophobia and fear. White guys with assault weapons are far more dangerous to the average American than an illegal immigrant. As a group, illegals commit far fewer crimes by percentage.

My midwestern in-laws couldn’t give a hoot about illegal immigrants. They are concerned about the fact that the only hospital I’m the 50 mile area has closed and with it all the jobs related to it gone. They have grown to appreciate the ACA recognizing that it protects coverage preexisting conditions and wonder what will happen if Trump further guts the ACA with no replacement.

They aren’t going to vote based on illegal immigration, that’s for sure. This is a wedge issue and shame on the GOP ... though these days, the GOP has no shame. No guts. No shame. No integrity.

You do you; I'll do me.

Healthcare, in particular, is an immigration issue. Don't be fooled. If you think illegal immigration doesn't affect the issues you mentioned above, you're fooling yourself. Just watch your premiums grow b/c of free visits to the ER. WE end up paying.

The costs of immigrants in our system are relatively small but more importantly, healthcare is NOT an immigration issue. It’s a systemic issue that is driven by a for profit motive of our health care system. Premiums aren’t ramping up because of immigrants, FFS.

Do you actually believe the crap you’re spewing?

yes they do believe in the stuff he/she is spewing because the cult members are conned to believe that all their issue is due to immigration and not because their party stops them from getting education, healthcare and other benefits and gives that to the rich as tax cuts.

+1

The “illegal” boogeyman gets tons of mileage from the fearful, xenophobic morons.

Facts are your friend.

Instead of attacking, do some basic research. I did.

0.5% of US healthcare costs.

Just like I said: “illegal” boogeyman gets tons of mileage from the morons.

This doesn’t even touch on the tremendous resources given to children of illegal immigrants in our public schools. Clearly, your kids don’t attend one of these schools.

My kids attend “these schools”. 60% of my kids’ ES is ESOL. We have a high FARMS rate. And you know what? It’s a great school. My kids are thriving. These newcomers have families who work hard - some with multiple jobs - and are invested in education. They love being in this country. These are the kids who will grow up to be contributors to their communities and this country, just like generations of immigrant children before them.

As a tax payer, this “support” doesn’t bother me. These are future teachers, doctors, plumbers, scientists. They’ll give back.

You know what does bother me in terms of freeloading? When taxpayers have to subsidize the healthcare and food intake for workers at incredibly wealthy companies like Wal Mart because the company pays people working full time dirt wages. Or tax cuts for billionaires who mine federal subsidies and tax payer paid infrastructure to build riches. That’s the kind of corporate welfare that every American should be outraged by because there is very little “trickle down” or benefit to anyone beyond a select number of shareholders.

But Trump and the GOP have very effectively kept their base focused on the “outrage” of desperate Latinos fleeing poverty and violence in Central America. Never mind that most illegal immigrants in this country are here because they overstayed their visas and came here through airports, not the southern border. Hence 54+ pages of this thread....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it wasn’t Trumps idea, would sending people to the sanctuary cities be considered a punishment on the residents of those cities?

In other words, if this had been a Dem's idea, how would liberals be reacting to this measure?

great question

+1
DP. I pointed this out earlier in the thread. If AOC, for instance, had come up with this idea, liberals would be praising her to the heavens. The only variable here is that it was Trump's idea - and so it must be shot down immediately, preferably with as much outrage as possible.

Take the politics out of it and it bocomes a simple question.

Is relocating these people to the sanctuary cities a punishment or not? If so, what’s the point of sanctuary cities? If not, what’s the problem?

Why are you so fixated on “punishment”? Seek help for your anger issues.

I don’t think it’s a punishment. Others here keep saying it is, I’m asking why they think that.

Why do you care what random internet people think more than what the POTUS thinks?

Because what he thinks is irrelevant. If he thinks it’s a great idea, does it suddenly become a great idea.

It’s a simple question.

Is relocating these people to the sanctuary cities a punishment or not? If so, what’s the point of sanctuary cities? If not, what’s the problem?

My kids attend “these schools”. 60% of my kids’ ES is ESOL. We have a high FARMS rate. And you know what? It’s a great school. My kids are thriving. These newcomers have families who work hard - some with multiple jobs - and are invested in education. They love being in this country. These are the kids who will grow up to be contributors to their communities and this country, just like generations of immigrant children before them.

As a tax payer, this “support” doesn’t bother me. These are future teachers, doctors, plumbers, scientists. They’ll give back.

You know what does bother me in terms of freeloading? When taxpayers have to subsidize the healthcare and food intake for workers at incredibly wealthy companies like Wal Mart because the company pays people working full time dirt wages. Or tax cuts for billionaires who mine federal subsidies and tax payer paid infrastructure to build riches. That’s the kind of corporate welfare that every American should be outraged by because there is very little “trickle down” or benefit to anyone beyond a select number of shareholders.

But Trump and the GOP have very effectively kept their base focused on the “outrage” of desperate Latinos fleeing poverty and violence in Central America. Never mind that most illegal immigrants in this country are here because they overstayed their visas and came here through airports, not the southern border. Hence 54+ pages of this thread...

Russell Rumberger, a professor emeritus at UC Santa Barbara who directs the California Dropout Research Project, said poverty is too big an obstacle for some students to overcome. Although the graduation rate has increased, more than 50,000 students drop out of high school each year, he said.

. . .

Rumberger said Latino and other student groups who have historically lagged behind have made “remarkable” graduation gains, but he cautioned that “a high school diploma is really a blunt instrument and it doesn’t really tell us too much about what a student has learned.”

. . .

One of the concerns he wants to explore further is the rising use of “credit recovery” or online courses that students are taking in some districts, including Los Angeles Unified, to make up for more traditional semester-long courses that students may have failed.

“The rigor of that (credit recovery courses) is questionable,” he said, adding that districts still have a lot of discretion in what they require of students before giving them diplomas.