Sign in to follow this  
mr6666

Immigration Policy?

199 posts in this topic

More than 800,000 are affected.  They have family members, friends, neighbors, employers, co-workers, etc.  This hurts millions and will harm the economy which is why industry leaders have come out against ending it.  These young people were brought here as children and infants through no fault of their own.  They are working, defending our country, going to school, etc.  The cruelty of Trump knows no end.  I don't give a rat's *** about throwing another bone to his "base."   I hope and pray Congress will do something to rectify this.  This is just heartless and evil.

 

Yes,  DACA should remain,  but what would you be willing to give up,  as it relates to illegal immigration,  for the GOP to support making DACA the law of the land?

 

E.g.   Sanctuary Cities?    Deportation without a hearing for anyone that that has illegally crossed into the USA in the last year? 

 

It is unrealistic for illegal immigration advocates to expect the GOP party to give them DACA without getting back something in return.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The legal case of if DACA violated the Constitution by exceeding the authority of the office of the President should go on.   (I believe most non-partisans legal expects believe the SC would undo DACA).

 

Executives orders are giving the office too much power and the counts needs to return some of that power back to Congress.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may constitute the "High Noon" AKA

 

" The Gunfight at the OK Corral " that the media's been dying for.

Gunfight at the Trump Corral. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice how the idea of legislative action to secure a heavy fine be levied to those big businesses (corporate agri, slaughterhouses, construction, et al) and wealthy individuals that hire undocumented, illegal aliens (gardeners, maids, nannies etc.) never seems to be discussed in congress, or in here?

 

Could that be because if that were to occur, Trump would pay the highest fine and probably lose 90% of his hotel chain's cleaning and cooking  staffs?

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Notice how the idea of legislative action to secure a heavy fine be levied to those big businesses (corporate agri, slaughterhouses, construction, et al) and wealthy individuals that hire undocumented, illegal aliens (gardeners, maids, nannies etc.) never seems to be discussed in congress, or in here?

 

Could that be because if that were to occur, Trump would pay the highest fine and probably lose 90% of his hotel chain's cleaning and cooking  staffs?

 

 

Sepiatone

 

While some GOP members will mention legislative action toward businesses that hire illegal immigration since the GOP funded Chamber of Commerce is against any business 'requirements'  (e.g. E-Verity)  or sanctions (fines),   it is all smoke and mirrors.

 

Since the Dems also don't want anything that would hinder the hiring of illegal immigrants,  neither side is going to push very hard for this type of immigration reform.   

 

BUT maybe Dems could be pushed to vote for a bill that includes increased employer sanctions and mandated E-verify,  that also included DACA legislative.     Still if I was Paul Ryan I would be asking for more from the Dems;  like penalties against Sanctuary  Cities (assuming Congress has the authority to do so).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barack ObamaVerified account @BarackObama 4h4 hours ago

 
 

To target hopeful young strivers who grew up here is wrong, because they’ve done nothing wrong. My statement:

 

 

".....Over the years, politicians of both parties have worked together to write legislation that would have told these young people – our young people – that if your parents brought you here as a child, if you’ve been here a certain number of years, and if you’re willing to go to college or serve in our military, then you’ll get a chance to stay and earn your citizenship. And for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill.

That bill never came.

And because it made no sense to expel talented, driven, patriotic young people from the only country they know solely because of the actions of their parents, my administration acted to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people, so that they could continue to contribute to our communities and our country.

We did so based on the well-established legal principle of prosecutorial discretion, deployed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike, because our immigration enforcement agencies have limited resources, and it makes sense to focus those resources on those who come illegally to this country to do us harm. Deportations of criminals went up........

 

....the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question. Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us....

 

...And now that the White House has shifted its responsibility for these young people to Congress, it’s up to Members of Congress to protect these young people and our future...."

 

 

see Obama's full statement..........

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/05/politics/obama-full-statement-daca/index.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

To target hopeful young strivers who grew up here is wrong, because they’ve done nothing wrong. My statement:

 

 

".....Over the years, politicians of both parties have worked together to write legislation that would have told these young people – our young people – that if your parents brought you here as a child, if you’ve been here a certain number of years, and if you’re willing to go to college or serve in our military, then you’ll get a chance to stay and earn your citizenship. And for years while I was President, I asked Congress to send me such a bill.

That bill never came.

And because it made no sense to expel talented, driven, patriotic young people from the only country they know solely because of the actions of their parents, my administration acted to lift the shadow of deportation from these young people, so that they could continue to contribute to our communities and our country.

We did so based on the well-established legal principle of prosecutorial discretion, deployed by Democratic and Republican presidents alike, because our immigration enforcement agencies have limited resources, and it makes sense to focus those resources on those who come illegally to this country to do us harm. Deportations of criminals went up........

 

....the action taken today isn’t required legally. It’s a political decision, and a moral question. Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us....

 

...And now that the White House has shifted its responsibility for these young people to Congress, it’s up to Members of Congress to protect these young people and our future...."

 

 

 

The only thing of substance in Obama's comment is the last sentence.

 

Oh,  and this is what Obama had to say when he implemented DACA using an Executive order: "This is not amnesty. This is not immunity. This is not a path to citizenship. It's not a permanent fix," Obama said. "This is a temporary stopgap measure."

 

So how long did Obama feel this 'stopgap measure' should remain in place?   

 

GOP leaders like Paul Ryan are saying they plan to do exactly what Obama wanted:  ending this stopgap measure so that Congress can make it permanent.    Trump has hinted he would sign it.

 

All this current doom and gloom by the Dems on DACA is nonsense (but I'm sure it is great for fund raising!).   Pelosi needs to work with Ryan to get something passed,  and GOP Senators that support DACA like McCain and Grahame need to ensure it gets passed in the Senate.     

 

Dems should only cry foul 4 or so months down the road IF no such deal has been signed. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While some GOP members will mention legislative action toward businesses that hire illegal immigration since the GOP funded Chamber of Commerce is against any business 'requirements'  (e.g. E-Verity)  or sanctions (fines),   it is all smoke and mirrors.

 

Since the Dems also don't want anything that would hinder the hiring of illegal immigrants,  neither side is going to push very hard for this type of immigration reform.   

 

BUT maybe Dems could be pushed to vote for a bill that includes increased employer sanctions and mandated E-verify,  that also included DACA legislative.     Still if I was Paul Ryan I would be asking for more from the Dems;  like penalties against Sanctuary  Cities (assuming Congress has the authority to do so).

I don't even recall EVER hearing ANYbody call them "sanctuary cities" until the campaigns and Trump's election.  Sounded to me like a way to slough the blame off of federal legislative inaction to places that have neither the funds or means to effectively deal with the problem.

 

With many major cities facing serious infrastructure deterioration, funneling inadequate funds away from those issues to deal with Trump's "pet project" is ill advised IMHO.

 

 

Sepiatone

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't even recall EVER hearing ANYbody call them "sanctuary cities" until the campaigns and Trump's election.  Sounded to me like a way to slough the blame off of federal legislative inaction to places that have neither the funds or means to effectively deal with the problem.

 

With many major cities facing serious infrastructure deterioration, funneling inadequate funds away from those issues to deal with Trump's "pet project" is ill advised IMHO.

 

 

Sepiatone

 

Here in CA there were sanctuary cities created during Obama first term because the Obama admin was deporting more illegal immigrants than the previous admin.   

 

CA passed a bill to become a sanctuary state;  that means that all local police departments can't assist ICE with regards to illegal immigrants.     To me that is nonsense and the Feds are right to cut off funds to these cities.    But here in CA the politicians care more about illegal immigrants than citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I see that Schumer and Pelosi are taking a hardline stance that the GOP needs to put up a 'clean' DACA bill ('clean' meaning it only includes DACA),  for a Yes \ No vote.

 

In addition Pelosi called Trump names related to his actions on DACA (yea, Nancy that is going to help make DACA permanent!).   

 

So it looks like Dems are more interested in trying to score political points,  to increase fund raising, than having DACA become permanent law.

 

Ryan is calling for a DACA bill that would include funds for increased border security.   Don't the Dems know that they have little political power and therefore drawing lines in the sand they can't defend is silly and counterproductive.

 

If Dems believe giving in on increased border security is too extreme at least offer something. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I see that Schumer and Pelosi are taking a hardline stance that the GOP needs to put up a 'clean' DACA bill ('clean' meaning it only includes DACA),  for a Yes \ No vote.

 

In addition Pelosi called Trump names related to his actions on DACA (yea, Nancy that is going to help make DACA permanent!).   

 

So it looks like Dems are more interested in trying to score political points,  to increase fund raising, than having DACA become permanent law.

 

Ryan is calling for a DACA bill that would include funds for increased border security.   Don't the Dems know that they have little political power and therefore drawing lines in the sand they can't defend is silly and counterproductive.

 

If Dems believe giving in on increased border security is too extreme at least offer something. 

 

I would say the exact opposite is true.  Tying anything to this bill would be to politicize it.  It's simple.  If they want to save it, do so.  Let's stare into their souls if they have any.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say the exact opposite is true.  Tying anything to this bill would be to politicize it.  It's simple.  If they want to save it, do so.  Let's stare into their souls if they have any.

 

Yes,  adding something anti-illegal-immigration would politicize the bill.  I never said it wouldn't (instead I said this was politics 101).

 

Again that has to be done in order for GOP members in Congress to 'sell' the bill to the people that voted for them.    

 

As for 'they';   It appears you mean the GOP:    whoever said the GOP,  as a party,   'want to save it'???    Only some core GOP members have said they wish to 'save it'.    In order for these members to convince additional members of the GOP to support such a bill they need SOMETHING from the Dems.

 

Only a fool would expect GOP members of Congress that support DACA to join with Dems and pass a bill that a majority of GOP members vote against.    This is especially true of Paul Ryan.    He is the GOP House leader.  He can't vote against the wishes of a majority of GOP House members.    This is why he wants to add border security to the bill with DACA.

 

Is that really so unreasonable?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Only a fool would expect GOP members of Congress that support DACA to join with Dems and pass a bill that a majority of GOP members vote against.    This is especially true of Paul Ryan.    He is the GOP House leader.  He can't vote against the wishes of a majority of GOP House members.    This is why he wants to add border security to the bill with DACA.

 

Is that really so unreasonable?   

 

Yes

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes

 

I forgot you're an open-borders advocate.     But I don't believe most Americans are.    My guess is that a majority of Americans (excluding CA) support both DACA and increased border security.    

 

Anyhow,  only time will tell if the Dems strategy of no compromise can guilt the GOP into passing a DACA-only bill (as well as Trump signing such a bill).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot you're an open-borders advocate.     But I don't believe most Americans are.    My guess is that a majority of Americans (excluding CA) support both DACA and increased border security.    

 

Anyhow,  only time will tell if the Dems strategy of no compromise can guilt the GOP into passing a DACA-only bill (as well as Trump signing such a bill).

 

I'm not sure what an open borders advocate is.  I believe in borders and immigration.  Legitimate refugees are another matter.  Turning them away is evil.  It was wrong to do it to the Jews in the 1930's when many of them went to death camps as a result and it is equally wrong not to help the Syrians who simply cannot survive in cities that are being turned into rubble by bombs.

But Trump now owns the DACA problem.  He is the president and his party controls the Senate and the Congress.  Trump is strangling Obamacare so that it will fail.  So he owns that too.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what an open borders advocate is.  I believe in borders and immigration.  Legitimate refugees are another matter.  Turning them away is evil.  It was wrong to do it to the Jews in the 1930's when many of them went to death camps as a result and it is equally wrong not to help the Syrians who simply cannot survive in cities that are being turned into rubble by bombs.

But Trump now owns the DACA problem.  He is the president and his party controls the Senate and the Congress.  Trump is strangling Obamacare so that it will fail.  So he owns that too.

 

If you 'believe in borders'  why would you be opposed to increased border security, IF doing so,  helps DACA become the law of the land?     Especially if the largest concern of illegal-immigration advocates is DACA.  

 

Again my main concern is making DACA permanent law.      I really don't care who 'owns it'.   Funny you mention the ACA;   Uh, the GOP owned that and didn't get anything done.    Do you really want the GOP to 'own' DACA,   and get nothing done there as well?   

 

Yea,  the GOP might take a hit in the 2018 election if that happens but I don't wish to use those in the DACA program for political gain against the GOP in future election.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you 'believe in borders'  why would you be opposed to increased border security, IF doing so,  helps DACA become the law of the land?     Especially if the largest concern of illegal-immigration advocates is DACA.  

 

Again my main concern is making DACA permanent law.      I really don't care who 'owns it'.   Funny you mention the ACA;   Uh, the GOP owned that and didn't get anything done.    Do you really want the GOP to 'own' DACA,   and get nothing done there as well?   

 

Yea,  the GOP might take a hit in the 2018 election if that happens but I don't wish to use those in the DACA program for political gain against the GOP in future election.    

 

Do I wish the GOP to own DACA?  No, but they do.  That's reality and I hope they choke on it too.

You mentioned that scientists cannot agree in the climate change dialogue I was having with Lawrence.  Well, what about all of the people who are saying building a friggin wall is a grand waste of money?  I'm not opposed to border security.  America will do as it chooses as it always does.  But when people are living in poverty I would say no way to a stupid wall if it were up to me.  It's just plain priorities.  Trump has made immigration an issue for personal reasons.  He knows it is popular with a lot of Americans who are frankly afraid of immigrants for a number of reasons.  Even legitimate immigrants.  Losers like to target people of color and hence like Trump's message.  He and Jeff Sessions crowing about "Border Security" is just hog wash.  That's not the REAL reason they are on about it.  It's all about gaining power and obedience.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Politics of the DREAM Act Seem Pretty Easy, But Some Democrats Are Still Screwing It Up-

 

".........Congress is falling into two camps: not for and against a DREAM Act, but for and against voting on a DREAM Act by itself. And calling for a comprehensive immigration solution — which Congress has failed to agree on for decades, even when the parties were far less polarized — is pretty close to being against anything getting done. It’s a cheap way to earn support and respect from a public that overwhelmingly supports DACA — 76 percent in favor of allowing beneficiaries to stay, including 69 percent of Republicans — without having to vote to keep them in the country.....

 

........But getting a durable solution for Dreamers will require supporters to be very specific with lawmakers. If they support keeping those protected under DACA in the country, they have to be willing to pass that bill. Anything that gets caught up in thorny immigration politics is a kind of substitute for saying no."

 

https://theintercept.com/2017/09/06/jon-tester-and-joe-manchin-key-democratic-senators-wobbly-on-dream-act/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do I wish the GOP to own DACA?  No, but they do.  That's reality and I hope they choke on it too.

You mentioned that scientists cannot agree in the climate change dialogue I was having with Lawrence.  Well, what about all of the people who are saying building a friggin wall is a grand waste of money?  I'm not opposed to border security.  America will do as it chooses as it always does.  But when people are living in poverty I would say no way to a stupid wall if it were up to me.  It's just plain priorities.  Trump has made immigration an issue for personal reasons.  He knows it is popular with a lot of Americans who are frankly afraid of immigrants for a number of reasons.  Even legitimate immigrants.  Losers like to target people of color and hence like Trump's message.  He and Jeff Sessions crowing about "Border Security" is just hog wash.  That's not the REAL reason they are on about it.  It's all about gaining power and obedience.

 

I stated that I don't support allocating funds for a 'wall' since I believe there are much better ways to deal with illegal immigration (e.g. mandated e-verify and major fines on employers that hire illegal immigrants),   but I would accept providing funds for border security, even if used for a 'wall',  if that is what it takes to make DACA the law of the land. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stated that I don't support allocating funds for a 'wall' since I believe there are much better ways to deal with illegal immigration (e.g. mandated e-verify and major fines on employers that hire illegal immigrants),   but I would accept providing funds for border security, even if used for a 'wall',  if that is what it takes to make DACA the law of the land. 

 

So as far as you are concerned America does not already spend enough on border police and security.  That's fine but there are a lot of other people who are not as concerned about this issue as you and would like the money to be spent on other things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So as far as you are concerned America does not already spend enough on border police and security.  That's fine but there are a lot of other people who are not as concerned about this issue as you and would like the money to be spent on other things.

 

What part of "I stated that I don't support allocating funds for a 'wall' since I believe there are much better ways to deal with illegal immigration (e.g. mandated e-verify and major fines on employers that hire illegal immigrants)",  did you fail to understand?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What part of "I stated that I don't support allocating funds for a 'wall' since I believe there are much better ways to deal with illegal immigration (e.g. mandated e-verify and major fines on employers that hire illegal immigrants)",  did you fail to understand?????

 

What's with you?  I didn't fail to understand anything.  You support spending MORE money on border security.  MORE money.

I observed in my last post that you don't think America is spending enough money already.

Wall or no wall I simply said OTHER people have OTHER priorities which means that they think this issue does not merit MORE money.

Am I wrong to think that increased border security is not going to cost MORE money?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's with you?  I dind't fail to understand anything.  You support spending MORE money on border security.  MORE money.

I observed in my last post that you don't think America is spending enough money already.

Wall or no wall I simply said OTHER people have OTHER priorities which means that they think this issue does not merit MORE money.

Am I wrong to think that increased border security is not going to cost MORE money?

 

Oh, I see you were referring to another post.  My bad.

 

Yes, I'm fine with spending more money on border security (e.g. more ICE agents) but NOT on a wall.     But as I said,  I still prefer increasing the sanctions on employers that hire illegal immigrants as well as mandated E-verify over increased border security spending.      I.e. increased border security is a low priority for me.    (but I would support it if that is what it takes to make DACA the law of the land (something that is a high priority for me).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"President Trump on Tuesday appeared to endorse a sweeping immigration deal that would eventually grant millions of undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, saying he would be willing to “take the heat” politically for an approach that many of his hard-line supporters have long viewed as unacceptable.

The president made the remarks during an extended meeting with congressional Republicans and Democrats who are weighing a shorter-term agreement that would extend legal status for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. Mr. Trump has said such a deal must be accompanied by new money for a border wall and measures to limit immigrants from bringing family members into the country in the future, conditions he repeated during the meeting on Tuesday.

But in backing a broader immigration measure, Mr. Trump was giving a rare public glimpse of an impulse he has expressed privately to advisers and lawmakers — the desire to preside over a more far-reaching solution to the status of the 11 million undocumented immigrants already living and working in the United States....

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/us/politics/trump-daca-immigration.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us