Thread: Immigration issues back on the table

nebish - 1/10/2018 at 05:49 PM

So we had a televised portion of a bipartisan meeting at the White House yesterday. I caught about 20 minutes of it on TV, sounds like it was an hour total the cameras were allowed in.

As someone who tends to enjoy this kind of thing, I found it fascinating that this wasn't just allowing the cameras in the room for a dog and pony show, but several members from both sides expressed their positions and willingness or skepticism on issues and compromise with some back-and-forth discussions. I like seeing both sides present things like this face to face be it on a talk show or in a legislative setting.


Some on the right are singing Trump's praises. Others on the right are afraid (he encouraged the use of earmarks to move legislation and also said he would "sign whatever Congress sends him"). And then ofcourse the left has no shortage of things to pick apart from the meeting.

My take is that on the surface, this is exactly what I want, putting both sides together and tell them to figure something out, don't worry about a veto and let's do this. But as always with this line of thinking is likely overly optimistic.

I don't think Trump displayed the knowledge of why one side may be strongly for or against a certain aspect within the immigration debate.

The bigger issue is who and where is the compromise going to come from? There are not enough Republicans to get a right-only bill and even if there was, there is no universal agreement within the right on what immigration reform should look like. Some have expressed support for "a pathway to citizenship", but if they agree to that what will they get in return? So for the left, where can they compromise? It wouldn't appear they can change positions on the wall, chain migration or the diversity lottery, or can they?

I was disappointed, but not surprised that Trump did not know how many miles on the border he would like additional walls and he did not have a cost either, but instead said "they are working on it" for the mileage and scoffed at some high speculated costs and build times, but offered no estimates of his own. It has been a year, why does he not have numbers at the ready for what he wants?

So for the compromise, I do support additional physical barriers in sections on the border and I will defer to Homeland Security and ICE on what that should look like. I do not think, and I'm pretty sure they have publicly stated, that the entire border doesn't need to be blocked by a wall. If we get limited targeted areas for new construction or improvements on existing barriers (some of which are really just a joke)...could some Democrats go along with something like that?

What about limiting chain migration to nuclear family members...spouses and children? I do not like the ballooning effect of additional family members being granted permission to also come. I compare it to some people that I know here, that have had to move to keep a job. Sometimes their spouses and extended family has to stay behind because of their jobs offering them little to no time together for the duration of the job. It isn't the employers responsibility to offer to relocate the employee's family and absorb the costs associated with that. Just as it should not be our countries responsibility to bear the costs of additional family members of a given immigrant just because one immigrant choose to come work here. I'm assuming legally coming to work here. That is a choice that immigrant has made for a variety of reasons...and on that pros and cons scale they should weigh what being away from their family will mean and if in the end that is a net good situation they can accept. If we limit chain migration or family reunification to exclude extended family beyond spouses and minor children - is that a deal breaker?

The diversity lottery. The United States already accepts over a one million lawful immigrants into our country each year. Why does there need to be an additional system for under represented countries to migrate here? By eliminating this, America isn't getting whiter, America isn't getting less diverse. Our immigration system without the lottery continues to make America more and more diverse by the year, every year. Pew says 500,000 over the last 10 years have come here this way. Unfortunately so did Sayfollo Saipov, Hesham Mohamed Ali Hedayet and even Mohamed Atta was entered into the lottery (although he eventually came here by a different menthod) So did Abdurasul Hasanovich Juraboev, serving 15 years in prison for providing support to ISIS. And Syed Haris Ahmed, convicted of terrorism. And Imran Mandhai convicted in a bombing conspiracy. And Mousa Mohammed Abu Marzook convicted and deported for supporting terrorism. A handful of people in hundreds of thousands...is it worth it? In such dangerous times and newer risks facing our country, I don't think we need this random olive branch to the world in the name of diversity when the melting pot already gets bigger by a million people every year. If anything, employers say there is a need for more skilled workers...if we can't train US workers fast enough to fill those skilled jobs we should expand immigration in those areas, merit based. Is there any room for compromise on this?


Muleman1994 - 1/10/2018 at 08:43 PM

Yesterday President Trump showed the American People exactly how the sausage is made.

The president brought in members of both parties for a discussion in solving the illegal immigration and related matters facing our country. Fifty minutes of the 90-minute conversation were broadcast live to the people.

The Democrats around the table wanted to only discuss the DACA issue and ignored the pressing illegal immigration problem.

Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein repeatedly said the only matter they would consider was DACA. Essentially Feinstein said why don’t you give us everything we want and then we’ll talk about what you want.

Crap. National Security far out-weighs the ‘Crats political agenda to buy votes.

The Democrats were for the Border Wall under the failed Obama administration. They were for what President Trump and The American People want before they were against it.

Dems change tune on border wall, after backing barrier under Obama
www.foxnews.com

Five years ago, the entire Senate Democratic caucus voted for hundreds of miles of fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.

How times have changed.

Democrats are now blasting President Trump's border wall demands as “ineffective” and “unreasonable,” as they battle his initial $18 billion request.

And Republicans, along with other border-security advocates, are countering by accusing Democrats of flipping their position now that Trump is president.

“What we’re seeing right now is the height of hypocrisy from the Democrats, when the Democrats in 2013 wanted the immigration reform,” President of the National Border Patrol Council Brandon Judd said Tuesday on “Fox & Friends First.” “The only thing that’s changed is we now have Trump sitting in the White House instead of Obama in the White House and all of a sudden they’re against it.”

The circumstances in 2013 and 2018 do hold some differences.

Not only was Barack Obama president in 2013, but the bill voted on in June of that year -- the Border Security, Economic Opportunity and Immigration Modernization Act -- was pitched as a sweeping immigration reform.

On the security side, the bill called for the deployment of an additional 700 miles of fencing and technology along the U.S.-Mexico border – the same area Trump’s border wall would cover. The plan also devoted $40 billion over a decade to border enforcement measures and would double the number of border agents. On the other side, the bill made a host of visa reforms and offered a path to legal status for some illegal immigrants.

This time, the White House mainly wants a border wall, while Democrats mainly want to help the Dreamers, young illegal immigrants whose "DACA" protection ends in March.

The Trump administration, however, sees potential for trade-offs. They kicked off immigration talks at the White House Tuesday, with an eye toward making a deal that would cover border security and potentially other reforms that could entice Democrats.

Critics are openly asking why Democrats are so vocally opposed to concessions on the border barrier now, if they were willing to support it in 2013.

Judd noted that Democrats refer to the border wall as “anti-immigrant.”

“So were they anti-immigrant in 2013?” Judd said. “That is where the hypocrisy comes in and that is what the American people are tired of. They’re tired of all of this deadlock and they’re tired of politicians playing politics with their safety and security.”

The Republican National Committee also sent out a release over the weekend, reminding Democrats of their voting history on immigration reform.

“Don’t let Democrats forget their long history of supporting many of the same measure President Trump is championing today,” an RNC spokesperson said.

The RNC pointed to the vote in 2013 and a vote in 2006, where prominent Democrats voted in favor of a physical barrier along the southern border.

All 52 Democrats, plus Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Angus King, I-Maine, voted in favor of the 2013 bill, which died in the House. And in 2006, Democrats like then-Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., Joe Biden, D-Del., and current Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., voted in favor of the Secure Fence Act, which would add “two layers of reinforced fencing, installation of additional physical barriers” to ports of entry along the southern border.

This is not the first time Democrats have backed off policies now supported by the Trump White House. Many Democrats initially supported the move of the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but when Trump announced his position, Democrats decried it.

“They all voted for a border barrier –a hard physical border barrier back in 2006, the Secure Fence Act,” White House senior policy adviser Stephen Miller said on Fox News' “Tucker Carlson Tonight” Monday, listing Obama, Clinton, and Biden. “So that’s a new position they apparently have if they’re opposed to any sort of [barriers].”

When asked for comment about their 2013 support, Sens. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and others did not respond to Fox News’ request for comment.

But Schumer argued that the 2013 proposal was much different than what’s on the table now, saying that it addressed the illegal immigrant population of 11 million people, whereas Democrats plan on “only addressing Dreamers” in current talks.

“We’d be glad to do comprehensive immigration reform, like the Senate bill from 2013, that has more of what both sides want but that will take time,” Schumer said in a statement to Fox News. “There is an immediate need to protect the DACA recipients, so the deal will be more narrow than that.”

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/09/dems-change-tune-on-border-wall- after-backing-barrier-under-obama.html



BoytonBrother - 1/10/2018 at 11:34 PM

Mule, if we cut and paste your response, will we find online like your previous one? Just how many posts do you plagiarize?


nebish - 1/11/2018 at 12:27 AM

Posting articles is fine, but what an internet forum like this should be for is discussion.

And there are so few of us on this forum now, the ones who are active it would be nice if we could get some personal feelings, ideas, concerns and spots of hypothetical compromise. We're here to talk to eachother right, or sometimes it is talk past eachother, but we come here all the same to, hopefully talk. Although some just want to throw mud and finger point. Shame we've lost so many good contributors, but I'm stuck here I guess for better or worse.


2112 - 1/11/2018 at 12:52 AM

I enjoyed your perspective in the OP. One thing to keep in mind is that new workers coming into the US through immigration is the only thing that will keep social security from collapsing. With baby boomers going into retirement, that means more people collecting social security and fewer paying into it. There simply aren't enough young people paying into social security without new immigration.

My only complaint is new immigrants who come in and immediately collect benefits, but the perception is that this is widespread, and I think the reality is that it's not as common as believed.

I would be for some limits to allowable benefits to even legal immigrants. But there are already some border walls in some areas (I have seen them), so additional walls at the expense of taxpayers is rediculous. Maybe if Trump can get Mexico to pay for it like he promised, there can be room for discussion. Other than that, I don't see Democrats bending on this issue.


OriginalGoober - 1/11/2018 at 01:52 AM

After yesterdays display of Trumps leadership, how can any democrats here view this as a negative? The President is open to a DACA resolution as well as a path to citizenship. It was a brilliant play, to get democrats on record to commit to wanting a secure border, which means a walll in some areas. As a Trump supporter, I am willing to let the migrants stay as long as steps on border security are also taken. One thing is apparent, kicking the can down the road like Bush Jr, Obama and the rest of the presidential wannabees were comfortable having is done with. Time for action.


pops42 - 1/11/2018 at 02:47 AM

quote:
After yesterdays display of Trumps leadership, how can any democrats here view this as a negative? The President is open to a DACA resolution as well as a path to citizenship. It was a brilliant play, to get democrats on record to commit to wanting a secure border, which means a walll in some areas. As a Trump supporter, I am willing to let the migrants stay as long as steps on border security are also taken. One thing is apparent, kicking the can down the road like Bush Jr, Obama and the rest of the presidential wannabees were comfortable having is done with. Time for action.
What the fu#k is having a wall in "some area's" gonna do?, cost the tax-payers billions for NO results. is that leadership to you?.


nebish - 1/11/2018 at 01:17 PM

quote:
I enjoyed your perspective in the OP. One thing to keep in mind is that new workers coming into the US through immigration is the only thing that will keep social security from collapsing. With baby boomers going into retirement, that means more people collecting social security and fewer paying into it. There simply aren't enough young people paying into social security without new immigration.

My only complaint is new immigrants who come in and immediately collect benefits, but the perception is that this is widespread, and I think the reality is that it's not as common as believed.

I would be for some limits to allowable benefits to even legal immigrants. But there are already some border walls in some areas (I have seen them), so additional walls at the expense of taxpayers is rediculous. Maybe if Trump can get Mexico to pay for it like he promised, there can be room for discussion. Other than that, I don't see Democrats bending on this issue.


Excellent point about the need for increased social security receipts. We do need legal immigration and we do need legal work visas for immigrants to come and work here on both a temporary and permanent basis. We also need to get the labor participation rate up, after peaking in the late 90s over 67%, we've been running about 5% below that in recent years. If the economy is going to grow, and some are assuming it will, especially if we are going to have annual GDP growth over 3% - this economy is going to need new labor and immigration is most definitely a means to fulfill that.

I think your comments on limiting benefits for legal immigrants strikes a common sense area where those with differing views than you on the other side could see that as the kind of compromise somebody from a more typical left position could offer. I may try to find out how many, or what percentage of immigrants who come here are immediately dependent on our state and federal social programs and how long that typically lasts. I am not saying that we only must accept the smart, young and healthy immigrants to benefit our economy...I think our country can and should take some of the "tired and weak" - but I want to see those tired and weak become invigorated and strong and prosper for themselves and our communities.

About the wall, and in response to pops42 post about the wall.

The wall has become such a hot button issue and a symbol of Trump himself and some of the "basket of deplorables" who want the wall and want to limit illegal immigration for reasons of racism and discrimination. Allow me to restate the obvious here, not everyone who wants to get our immigration system under control with limits and protections are motivated by some dark and disturbed reasons. And I think before Trump came along, there were members of both parties who saw border security with additional barriers along the US-Mexican border as 'good' or 'necessary'. Hence the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which had wide bipartisan support. Times are different, because it is Trump and the fire he has stokes. But the core reasoning from 2006 to now is not different. As originally written, the Secure Fence Act specified - 700 miles of double fence with a space between the two layers wide enough to drive a vehicle in. Only 5% of what they built was actually built to spec. Here is a good recap of what happened since the law's original passage:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/16/barack-obama /obama-says-border-fence-now-basically-complete/

Here is what I'm saying, build barriers to the original spec in the Secure Fence act and I will be happy. And I can presume that the 26 Democrat Senators and the 64 Democrats in the House that voted for it would support something similar now - right?


nebish - 1/11/2018 at 01:27 PM

quote:
After yesterdays display of Trumps leadership, how can any democrats here view this as a negative? The President is open to a DACA resolution as well as a path to citizenship. It was a brilliant play, to get democrats on record to commit to wanting a secure border, which means a walll in some areas. As a Trump supporter, I am willing to let the migrants stay as long as steps on border security are also taken. One thing is apparent, kicking the can down the road like Bush Jr, Obama and the rest of the presidential wannabees were comfortable having is done with. Time for action.


And for the record here, taking into consideration the view of both the left and the right, when the left says they support additional security, it doesn't necessarily mean a wall. Physical barriers are one part of border security. Border security must represent human resources, surveillance assets, a means and authority for detention and removal. I think most on the left are ok with increasing to some level the number of human and surveliance assets, but it is the other two parts of the equation that make them nervous with their base and probably their principles. 50% of the equation isn't going to get the job done.

I could support a path to citizenship and I could support some kind of amnesty for DACA immigrants. But just like everyone who is on the right side of this argument, this country must do what it takes to make sure problems like DACA and problems like 11 million or more illegals who are here do not happen again - or atleast minimize to the best extent possible. This includes VISA overstays - which is almost as big of a problem as actual illegal entry.

I had heard there was Senate and House activity on immigration debate yesterday but have not had a chance to catch up on it. I will post anything of interest later today.


nebish - 1/11/2018 at 01:40 PM

And before somebody posts about how illegal crossings are down and this isn't needed - yes illegal crossings are down, but there are still hundreds of thousands that are apprehended. And it has been estimated that they only catch 40-60% of the illegals crossing. I forget the exact figure, I posted it here before from a Chicago Tribune story.


quote:
Southwest Border Migration FY2018

CBP has seen an uptick in individuals month-to-month apprehended while trying to enter the country illegally in between the established ports of entry, and an increase in those presenting themselves for entry, without proper documentation, along our Southwest border. The majority of these individuals are single adults, while the largest percentage increases come from family units and unaccompanied children who increased 21 percent and 7 percent respectively compared with the previous month.


In December a total of 28,996 individuals were apprehended between ports of entry on our Southwest Border, compared with 29,082 in November and 25,490 in October. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2017, USBP apprehended 303,916 individuals along our Southwest Border, compared to 408,870 in FY16, 331,333 in FY15, and 479,371 in FY14.

In December, a total of 11,517 people presenting themselves at ports of entry on the Southwest Border were deemed inadmissible compared to 9,913 in November, and 9,362 in October. In FY 2017 111,275 individuals were deemed inadmissible compared to 150,825 in FY16, 114,486 in FY15 and 90,601 in FY14. OFO inadmissibility metrics include: individuals encountered at ports of entry who are seeking lawful admission into the United States but are determined to be inadmissible, individuals presenting themselves to seek humanitarian protection under our laws; and individuals who withdraw an application for admission and return to their countries of origin within a short timeframe.

https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration




nebish - 1/11/2018 at 01:44 PM

Here it is. Data is from FY2015, hopefully they are having a better success rate now.


Barely half of illegal border crossers caught, according to Homeland Security report
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-us-mexico-border-crossing -captures-20161006-story.html


BIGV - 1/11/2018 at 04:21 PM

"Immigration reform"....Please.

How about "Immigration enforcement"?

And while I think the statement, "Mexico is going to pay for the wall" is absurd...The problem does begin and end in Mexico. Until the Government of Mexico starts providing better opportunities for its own people, this continual breaking of the law will continue under the Liberal banner of "They are just seeking a better life".

Once again, please.......


MartinD28 - 1/11/2018 at 05:36 PM

quote:
After yesterdays display of Trumps leadership, how can any democrats here view this as a negative? The President is open to a DACA resolution as well as a path to citizenship. It was a brilliant play, to get democrats on record to commit to wanting a secure border, which means a walll in some areas. As a Trump supporter, I am willing to let the migrants stay as long as steps on border security are also taken. One thing is apparent, kicking the can down the road like Bush Jr, Obama and the rest of the presidential wannabees were comfortable having is done with. Time for action.

Your thoughts on why Trump no longer mentions Mexico paying for the wall? He religiously campaigned on this. As a supporter of his, you should be able to provide detail other than Mexico will reimburse the American taxpayer later.


nebish - 1/11/2018 at 06:49 PM

Breaking news is that the Senate is on the verge of a bipartisan deal that gives legal status to DACA immigrants, has a border security package and also makes changes to the lottery and chain migration areas.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/368523-senators-on-verge-of-bipartisan-i mmigration-deal

Details are sketchy at this point.

In the House yesterday there was a partisan bill:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/368219-house-republicans-press-for-harder -line-immigration-bill

The two are not compatible.

I await the details of the Senate plan, hard to say my feelings on it other than general optimism at something bipartisan on a big issue. They've been working on this for months, but just 2 days after the White House meeting they were able to iron something out makes me feel better that Washington can still work without just one side getting all or nothing. The House Republicans will likely not like it. Can there be bipartisan support in the House? This is going to fall at the President's feet - is he really ready to take the heat on this like he said?


OriginalGoober - 1/12/2018 at 02:01 AM

So, the American people will watch liberals refuse proposed border security measurements and democrats think tney can lock up 2018 elections in Nov.? Think again. Americans will watch as democrats would rather neglect border security and keep America weak and let the drugs and bad hombres continue to stream across by refusing provisions for a border wall in DACA reform.




Sang - 1/12/2018 at 02:36 AM

Very few people are coming across now - who wrote that for you? Most people (including liberals) think we can find better things to do with $18 billion...........


Bhawk - 1/12/2018 at 03:52 AM

Asian illegal immigration has grown 200% in the last few years.

Wall around San Francisco?


nebish - 1/12/2018 at 04:30 AM

quote:
Very few people are coming across now - who wrote that for you? Most people (including liberals) think we can find better things to do with $18 billion...........


Sang, I know we sometimes don't read all the posts in the threads we comment in, but I just said that while the illegal border crossings are down, we are still talking about over 303,916 apprehensions between ports and 111,275 denied entry at the ports. Note the bolded figures in my post from 1/11 at 8:40am. And we know as previously reported the border patrol had about a 50% success rate at apprehending illegals. Illegal crossings are down, but nearly 304k individuals caught for FY 2017 and over 111k turned away who tried to enter is not what I would call "very few".


nebish - 1/12/2018 at 04:47 AM

quote:
Asian illegal immigration has grown 200% in the last few years.

Wall around San Francisco?


I believe more Asian illegal immigrants overstay VISAs than those from Central American and Mexico? There needs to be better tracking of VISA recipients, we know when they arrive and from there it is honor system to leave when their time is up. One set of objectives or solutions to curb illegal immigration from one region may not apply to illegal immigration from a different region. The problem is multifaceted. A wall may make it more difficult for those traveling by foot to cross the border illegally. A wall won't do anything to stop those coming by plane obviously on a legal VISA who just never leave.


BrerRabbit - 1/12/2018 at 05:05 AM

Here is how to stop Mexicans crossing the border illegally, for a fraction of the cost of consruction, defense, and maintenance of a wall, which will not be any obstacle to folks who are creative and motivated, and inured to hardship and challenge:

Hire Mexican drug cartels to stop the border crossings.Their system of informers and their proficiency with weapons, as well as zero moral compunctions about using them . . . I admit it could get messy, but the problem would go away in a very short time, one or two seasons is my guess, a season for the gearup then another few months for the mayhem..

Probably cost a lot less than our present Border Patrol.


nebish - 1/12/2018 at 06:21 AM

Some details of what the 6 Senators presented in the links below, most who want to know already know, but I post the links here for overall reference. I think it would've been a challenge to rally support on the left and the right, but that feels like what this issue deserves. Either side getting their own way will only divide the nation and the issue more. Bipartisan support is the only way. Trump's **** hole comment pretty much killed anything - even though he said he would sign whatever they sent him, although, again, not sure if this had a chance of passing anyway.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/talks-on-a-potential-immigration-de al-continue-with-deep-skepticism-on-both-sides/2018/01/11/d9f53ae8-f6cd-11e 7-a9e3-ab18ce41436a_story.html?utm_term=.d7b2c85dc137

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/11/lindsey-graham-dick-durbin -immigrant-deal-falls-sh/


MartinD28 - 1/12/2018 at 01:08 PM

quote:
So, the American people will watch liberals refuse proposed border security measurements and democrats think tney can lock up 2018 elections in Nov.? Think again. Americans will watch as democrats would rather neglect border security and keep America weak and let the drugs and bad hombres continue to stream across by refusing provisions for a border wall in DACA reform.






Can you answer this from response to your previous post?

Your thoughts on why Trump no longer mentions Mexico paying for the wall? He religiously campaigned on this. As a supporter of his, you should be able to provide detail other than Mexico will reimburse the American taxpayer later.


Jerry - 1/12/2018 at 04:09 PM

quote:
Asian illegal immigration has grown 200% in the last few years.

Wall around San Francisco?


How about one all around California?


2112 - 1/12/2018 at 08:12 PM

quote:
quote:
Asian illegal immigration has grown 200% in the last few years.

Wall around San Francisco?


How about one all around California?


Sounds reasonable, but only if they can keep all the tax revenue they provide to the country, which is over 25% higher than any other state. I think the country would go bankrupt if it weren't for tax revenue from those blue coastal states that provide most of the tax money that keeps the country going.


nebish - 1/12/2018 at 08:40 PM

Speaking of 25% of things....California imports 26% of the electricity they consume, Cali can thank Colorado, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas for keeping the lights on.


IPowrie - 1/13/2018 at 01:56 PM

Some thoughts on immigration

We should offer citizenship to people from El Savador who are losing there protective status.

While calling countries "s**tholes" was a terrible thing to say I believe the worst part of what he said was starting the sentence with why. This post I found on reddit sums it up pretty well.

https://np.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/7pv08v/a_new_low_the_world_is_fur ious_at_trump_for_his/dsk8sbi/


Bhawk - 1/13/2018 at 03:06 PM

quote:
Speaking of 25% of things....California imports 26% of the electricity they consume, Cali can thank Colorado, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas for keeping the lights on.


So, eff California then?


nebish - 1/13/2018 at 09:44 PM

quote:
quote:
Speaking of 25% of things....California imports 26% of the electricity they consume, Cali can thank Colorado, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas for keeping the lights on.


So, eff California then?


No. Why would that quote make you ask a question like that? Cali is great at alot of things, but they aren't self sufficient in every area. That was just a little tit-for-tat reply to 2112's post.


2112 - 1/14/2018 at 12:40 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Speaking of 25% of things....California imports 26% of the electricity they consume, Cali can thank Colorado, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Wyoming, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas for keeping the lights on.


So, eff California then?


No. Why would that quote make you ask a question like that? Cali is great at alot of things, but they aren't self sufficient in every area. That was just a little tit-for-tat reply to 2112's post.


Nobody is self sufficient, certainly not the USA. My point is that many on the right like to bash blue states and California in perticular, the blue states are the economic engine for the country and provide the vast majority of the tax money that keeps the USA afloat. Not saying that red states don't contribute. Texas provides significant tax revenue to the US, and Texas, Oklahoma and Alaska provide significant oil. But if the red wants to wall off California, then I'd like to know how they would like to replace the tax revenue that California provides, as most red states take way more money from the feds than they contribute.


OriginalGoober - 1/17/2018 at 12:25 AM

quote:
quote:
So, the American people will watch liberals refuse proposed border security measurements and democrats think tney can lock up 2018 elections in Nov.? Think again. Americans will watch as democrats would rather neglect border security and keep America weak and let the drugs and bad hombres continue to stream across by refusing provisions for a border wall in DACA reform.






Can you answer this from response to your previous post?

Your thoughts on why Trump no longer mentions Mexico paying for the wall? He religiously campaigned on this. As a supporter of his, you should be able to provide detail other than Mexico will reimburse the American taxpayer later.


Mexico WILL PAY. someway, somehow, through indirect costs, or NAFTA concessions, the US will recoup the costs of border enhancements. That is my thoughts on Trumps wall promises


Muleman1994 - 1/17/2018 at 01:36 AM

The left wants to shut down the Federal Government unless they get blanket amnesty for illegal aliens.

Make perfect sense since the left is against National Security and the law.


BoytonBrother - 1/17/2018 at 02:05 AM

Mexicans are laughing at the stupid border wall, that is only being built to appease the insecure scared Trump supporters. Most of these morons don't realize the majority of illegal aliens in this country come by plane legally and just never leave. Only a small percentage come from border crossings, but if it makes dip sh*ts like Goober feel better, then go ahead and build it. I'll laugh along with the Mexicans at the stupidity of the whole thing. It's a proven fact that those who struggle financially and professinally are the ones that are outraged at illegal immigration - gee, I wonder why.


2112 - 1/17/2018 at 12:36 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
So, the American people will watch liberals refuse proposed border security measurements and democrats think tney can lock up 2018 elections in Nov.? Think again. Americans will watch as democrats would rather neglect border security and keep America weak and let the drugs and bad hombres continue to stream across by refusing provisions for a border wall in DACA reform.






Can you answer this from response to your previous post?

Your thoughts on why Trump no longer mentions Mexico paying for the wall? He religiously campaigned on this. As a supporter of his, you should be able to provide detail other than Mexico will reimburse the American taxpayer later.


Mexico WILL PAY. someway, somehow, through indirect costs, or NAFTA concessions, the US will recoup the costs of border enhancements. That is my thoughts on Trumps wall promises


Nope, not a chance in hell. Mexico will never pay for it, even indirectly. If the wall ever gets built, and I seriously doubt it ever will, it will be on the backs of middle class US taxpayers.


MartinD28 - 1/17/2018 at 01:16 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
So, the American people will watch liberals refuse proposed border security measurements and democrats think tney can lock up 2018 elections in Nov.? Think again. Americans will watch as democrats would rather neglect border security and keep America weak and let the drugs and bad hombres continue to stream across by refusing provisions for a border wall in DACA reform.






Can you answer this from response to your previous post?

Your thoughts on why Trump no longer mentions Mexico paying for the wall? He religiously campaigned on this. As a supporter of his, you should be able to provide detail other than Mexico will reimburse the American taxpayer later.


Mexico WILL PAY. someway, somehow, through indirect costs, or NAFTA concessions, the US will recoup the costs of border enhancements. That is my thoughts on Trumps wall promises


Nope, not a chance in hell. Mexico will never pay for it, even indirectly. If the wall ever gets built, and I seriously doubt it ever will, it will be on the backs of middle class US taxpayers.

X2

And most of Trump believers probably have forgotten this when little Donnie talked with Mexican President Enrique Peńa Nieto about the wall.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/345117-trump-asked-mexican-presi dent-to-stop-publicly-saying-his-government


2112 - 1/17/2018 at 11:04 PM

And before anyone says Mexico will pay for the wall through a tax on imported goods, that's not Mexico paying for the wall. That's US taxpayers paying for the wall.


BIGV - 1/18/2018 at 12:22 AM

quote:
Mexicans are laughing at the stupid border wall, that is only being built to appease the insecure scared Trump supporters. Most of these morons don't realize the majority of illegal aliens in this country come by plane legally and just never leave. Only a small percentage come from border crossings, but if it makes dip sh*ts like Goober feel better, then go ahead and build it. I'll laugh along with the Mexicans at the stupidity of the whole thing. It's a proven fact that those who struggle financially and professinally are the ones that are outraged at illegal immigration - gee, I wonder why.


Is this a concession that Mexico has very little respect for our laws?...Sure reads like it.


2112 - 1/18/2018 at 01:37 AM

quote:
quote:
Mexicans are laughing at the stupid border wall, that is only being built to appease the insecure scared Trump supporters. Most of these morons don't realize the majority of illegal aliens in this country come by plane legally and just never leave. Only a small percentage come from border crossings, but if it makes dip sh*ts like Goober feel better, then go ahead and build it. I'll laugh along with the Mexicans at the stupidity of the whole thing. It's a proven fact that those who struggle financially and professinally are the ones that are outraged at illegal immigration - gee, I wonder why.


Is this a concession that Mexico has very little respect for our laws?...Sure reads like it.


So, do you think we have more respect for Mexico's laws than they have for ours?


OriginalGoober - 1/18/2018 at 01:51 AM

According to Boyton, the majority of the illegal immigration problem can be solved at the JFK terminal as the border is secure. Wowwweee. just unbelievable.


BoytonBrother - 1/18/2018 at 02:00 AM

quote:
Is this a concession that Mexico has very little respect for our laws?...Sure reads like it.


I bet it does for you. Interpret it as you wish. You hate them, I don’t care.


BoytonBrother - 1/18/2018 at 02:02 AM

quote:
According to Boyton, the majority of the illegal immigration problem can be solved at the JFK terminal as the border is secure. Wowwweee. just unbelievable.


How would an airport solve the problem of visa holders not leaving, which is what my post is about. Did you not pick that up genius? You know visa holders fly here, right? Woweee is right. You aren’t too bright are you.


BIGV - 1/18/2018 at 02:24 AM

quote:
quote:
Is this a concession that Mexico has very little respect for our laws?...Sure reads like it.


I bet it does for you. Interpret it as you wish. You hate them, I don’t care.


"Hate" ? Back that up...Show me where I've used that word, I'll wait.

Typical


BoytonBrother - 1/18/2018 at 02:32 AM

quote:
"Hate" ? Back that up...Show me where I've used that word, I'll wait.

Typical


I don’t think the KKK uses the word “hate” either.


nebish - 1/18/2018 at 04:08 AM

quote:
And before anyone says Mexico will pay for the wall through a tax on imported goods, that's not Mexico paying for the wall. That's US taxpayers paying for the wall.


To the extent that any business passes on the cost of employment, energy, taxes, any increases to their overhead and operating expenses that might dent their margins...Yes, companies pass along a number of costs to the consumers.

The United States should levy a tariff on all imports, and the effect is two-fold. One, it penalizes the foreign production and if the cost impact is significant enough, consumers will search for alternatives, presumably alternatives that have not been impacted by the cost increase of a tariff, ie items made in the USA. Two, it provides a revenue stream for the federal government to do with as they wish...public education, secondary education, law enforcement, entitlement funding, infrastructure, etc, etc, etc.

So, over the course of time, the targeted countries/regions may experience a financial loss from the tariff in terms of less employment, fewer companies locating production there and the loss of their own tax revenue from that lost economic activity resulting from the tariff. That is a 'cost' to their nations and economies. And our country receives the benefit of added tax revenue and also added employment opportunities as companies shift production back to our market and employ our workers while boosting our economic activity thanks to the tariff.

It is interesting, because in general, if Bernie Sanders were promoting a tariff, we'd have any number of Democrats voicing support for it's economic merits. But when a Republican mentions a tariff it get's dismissed as foolish and only raises costs on consumers. Yep.


2112 - 1/18/2018 at 04:48 AM

quote:
quote:
And before anyone says Mexico will pay for the wall through a tax on imported goods, that's not Mexico paying for the wall. That's US taxpayers paying for the wall.


To the extent that any business passes on the cost of employment, energy, taxes, any increases to their overhead and operating expenses that might dent their margins...Yes, companies pass along a number of costs to the consumers.

The United States should levy a tariff on all imports, and the effect is two-fold. One, it penalizes the foreign production and if the cost impact is significant enough, consumers will search for alternatives, presumably alternatives that have not been impacted by the cost increase of a tariff, ie items made in the USA. Two, it provides a revenue stream for the federal government to do with as they wish...public education, secondary education, law enforcement, entitlement funding, infrastructure, etc, etc, etc.

So, over the course of time, the targeted countries/regions may experience a financial loss from the tariff in terms of less employment, fewer companies locating production there and the loss of their own tax revenue from that lost economic activity resulting from the tariff. That is a 'cost' to their nations and economies. And our country receives the benefit of added tax revenue and also added employment opportunities as companies shift production back to our market and employ our workers while boosting our economic activity thanks to the tariff.

It is interesting, because in general, if Bernie Sanders were promoting a tariff, we'd have any number of Democrats voicing support for it's economic merits. But when a Republican mentions a tariff it get's dismissed as foolish and only raises costs on consumers. Yep.


You bring up a whole different discussion, but keep in mind that any tariff on goods coming from Mexico is going to be met with a tariff from Mexico on US goods being imported into Mexico. I'm not sure which country would benefit more, but what I do know is that if your goal is to prevent illegal immigration from Mexico, the worst thing you can do is to destroy or even harm their economy. The fewer the employment opportunities at home, the more they will look north, and a wall won't even slow them down. I guarantee the shovel and ladder industries won't be the industries to suffer.


nebish - 1/18/2018 at 01:19 PM

quote:
You bring up a whole different discussion, but keep in mind that any tariff on goods coming from Mexico is going to be met with a tariff from Mexico on US goods being imported into Mexico. I'm not sure which country would benefit more, but what I do know is that if your goal is to prevent illegal immigration from Mexico, the worst thing you can do is to destroy or even harm their economy. The fewer the employment opportunities at home, the more they will look north, and a wall won't even slow them down. I guarantee the shovel and ladder industries won't be the industries to suffer.


I wanted to briefly make a case for broad use of a tariff on imported goods. As it applies here, I think a tariff on Mexican goods and services is a fine way to fund immigration related expenses, just as tariffs on other countries could fund other programs and expenditures in our country. You are right, we tax imports, some other countries are going to tax our exports. I could, and have, and will again I'm sure in different threads, contend the net result is a good one for our country - there will domestic winners and losers, not everyone will win - that is impossible to create such an arrangement. My point is that it would be a better system that what we operate under now.

I am sure you are aware of the impact NAFTA had on illegal immigration from Mexico. It didn't keep Mexicans from coming here illegally, in fact it fueled it. And that was supposed to help the Mexican economy. So I'm not worried about a tax on imports creating more illegal immigration, we already did the reverse of that and paid for it with surges of illegals.


BIGV - 1/18/2018 at 04:57 PM

quote:
quote:
"Hate" ? Back that up...Show me where I've used that word, I'll wait.

Typical


I don’t think the KKK uses the word “hate” either.


Your lack of tact and accusatory style leaves me speechless; it is almost impossible to interact with you if an opposing viewpoint exists.

I believe Mexico has little respect for our laws and tire of the financial burden to taxpayers placed on them by those who choose to come here illegally. That opinion warrants the comparison to the KKK?

Absolutely amazing, but I am no longer surprised.


BoytonBrother - 1/18/2018 at 07:27 PM

quote:
Your lack of tact and accusatory style leaves me speechless; it is almost impossible to interact with you if an opposing viewpoint exists.


You feel accused?

quote:
I believe Mexico has little respect for our laws and tire of the financial burden to taxpayers placed on them by those who choose to come here illegally. That opinion warrants the comparison to the KKK?


No, you silly goose! Your notion that i can’t claim you hate them simply because you never wrote the actual word “hate”, warrants that comparison. I would never suggest your positions are similar to the KKK.

But your takeaway from the Illegal alien issue is that they are disrespectful and a burden. To me, that’s an extremely ignorant and hateful opinion to have about a people who flee to avoid violence and starvation. A better man directs his anger at the Mexican government for not doing anything to help its people. It’s your constant disparaging remarks about them for years, that warrants my opinion that you hate them.




[Edited on 1/18/2018 by BoytonBrother]


BIGV - 1/18/2018 at 10:05 PM

quote:
But your takeaway from the Illegal alien issue is that they are disrespectful and a burden.


They are. Note the word "Illegal", as in showing disrespect for the first law of this land they encounter.


Bhawk - 1/18/2018 at 10:28 PM

quote:
It is interesting, because in general, if Bernie Sanders were promoting a tariff, we'd have any number of Democrats voicing support for it's economic merits. But when a Republican mentions a tariff it get's dismissed as foolish and only raises costs on consumers. Yep.


I'd lay even odds that most Americans couldn't tell you what a tariff is, regardless of party.


2112 - 1/18/2018 at 11:31 PM

quote:
quote:
You bring up a whole different discussion, but keep in mind that any tariff on goods coming from Mexico is going to be met with a tariff from Mexico on US goods being imported into Mexico. I'm not sure which country would benefit more, but what I do know is that if your goal is to prevent illegal immigration from Mexico, the worst thing you can do is to destroy or even harm their economy. The fewer the employment opportunities at home, the more they will look north, and a wall won't even slow them down. I guarantee the shovel and ladder industries won't be the industries to suffer.


I wanted to briefly make a case for broad use of a tariff on imported goods. As it applies here, I think a tariff on Mexican goods and services is a fine way to fund immigration related expenses, just as tariffs on other countries could fund other programs and expenditures in our country. You are right, we tax imports, some other countries are going to tax our exports. I could, and have, and will again I'm sure in different threads, contend the net result is a good one for our country - there will domestic winners and losers, not everyone will win - that is impossible to create such an arrangement. My point is that it would be a better system that what we operate under now.

I am sure you are aware of the impact NAFTA had on illegal immigration from Mexico. It didn't keep Mexicans from coming here illegally, in fact it fueled it. And that was supposed to help the Mexican economy. So I'm not worried about a tax on imports creating more illegal immigration, we already did the reverse of that and paid for it with surges of illegals.


I'm also sure you realize that with increased tariffs on imported goods comes with increased consumer prices, which likely will slow retail sales. Every action has some kind of resulting effect. Chances are that any slight increase in US manufacturing will come with a significant decrease in retail sales due to higher prices. That's why protectionist policies generally don't sour economic growth. I'm not generally opposed to putting tariffs on goods to level the playing field based on environmental regulations, etc. But not to build an unnecessary wall for political purposes.


Muleman1994 - 1/19/2018 at 12:52 AM

The Democrats insist on blanket amnesty for illegal aliens or they will shut down the Government.

The date to fix the DACA matter March 5th. DACA is a temporary policy brought on by Obama as political weapon to buy votes and the Democrats never offered a permanent solution.

The left wants to shut down the Government tonight over an entirely unrelated matter.

BTW – it is not a Government shutdown. All critical functions of the Federal Government will continue to operate, and Social Security distributions are not affected.


2112 - 1/19/2018 at 12:58 AM

quote:
The Democrats insist on blanket amnesty for illegal aliens or they will shut down the Government.

The date to fix the DACA matter March 5th. DACA is a temporary policy brought on by Obama as political weapon to buy votes and the Democrats never offered a permanent solution.

The left wants to shut down the Government tonight over an entirely unrelated matter.

BTW – it is not a Government shutdown. All critical functions of the Federal Government will continue to operate, and Social Security distributions are not affected.




Trying to blame the Democrats when the Republicans hold both houses of Congress and the presidency is sad and pathetic. Trump and the Republican lead congress own this. I thought Trump was a great negotiator? Doesn't seem like it.


Muleman1994 - 1/19/2018 at 02:03 AM

The Democrats are demanding a “clean” dream act in exchange for funding the government.
They conveniently don’t mention that the so-called “dreamers” are illegal aliens.


2112 - 1/19/2018 at 02:13 AM

quote:
The Democrats are demanding a “clean” dream act in exchange for funding the government.
They conveniently don’t mention that the so-called “dreamers” are illegal aliens.




Trump has said that he loves the Dreamers on several occasions, which I guess makes sense given his love for illegal things. So the great negotiator should have no problem cutting a deal. Unless your suggesting he isn't a very good negotiator.


MartinD28 - 1/19/2018 at 02:24 AM

quote:
quote:
The Democrats insist on blanket amnesty for illegal aliens or they will shut down the Government.

The date to fix the DACA matter March 5th. DACA is a temporary policy brought on by Obama as political weapon to buy votes and the Democrats never offered a permanent solution.

The left wants to shut down the Government tonight over an entirely unrelated matter.

BTW – it is not a Government shutdown. All critical functions of the Federal Government will continue to operate, and Social Security distributions are not affected.




Trying to blame the Democrats when the Republicans hold both houses of Congress and the presidency is sad and pathetic. Trump and the Republican lead congress own this. I thought Trump was a great negotiator? Doesn't seem like it.


He has spent more time at his properties and playing golf than showing us his great negotiation skills. Then again, if he doesn't really understand policy & ramifications, it is hard to negotiate; much easier to make up stupid / childish nicknames and give out simpleton Fake New Awards. So he goes with what his skills really are.


Muleman1994 - 1/19/2018 at 03:08 AM

quote:
quote:
The Democrats are demanding a “clean” dream act in exchange for funding the government.
They conveniently don’t mention that the so-called “dreamers” are illegal aliens.




Trump has said that he loves the Dreamers on several occasions, which I guess makes sense given his love for illegal things. So the great negotiator should have no problem cutting a deal. Unless your suggesting he isn't a very good negotiator.



President Trump has repeatedly said he wants a solution to the so-called "dreamers" issue and securing our country's boarders to, amongst many other issues, preventing the illegal alien problem from happening again.

The left offers no solutions to that problem or the others such as human trafficking or drug smuggling.

President Trump's negotiating skills are quite apparent as evidenced in matters such as the booming economy and repeated foreign policy successes.





2112 - 1/19/2018 at 03:42 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
The Democrats are demanding a “clean” dream act in exchange for funding the government.
They conveniently don’t mention that the so-called “dreamers” are illegal aliens.




Trump has said that he loves the Dreamers on several occasions, which I guess makes sense given his love for illegal things. So the great negotiator should have no problem cutting a deal. Unless your suggesting he isn't a very good negotiator.



President Trump has repeatedly said he wants a solution to the so-called "dreamers" issue and securing our country's boarders to, amongst many other issues, preventing the illegal alien problem from happening again.

The left offers no solutions to that problem or the others such as human trafficking or drug smuggling.

President Trump's negotiating skills are quite apparent as evidenced in matters such as the booming economy and repeated foreign policy successes.



By booming economy I guess you mean a 6 year low in jobs added to the economy and by foreign policy successes you must mean the US becoming the laughingstock of the world.

He might have had some success on the golf course though since he spends 3 times as much time golfing than Obama did.

Trump is a pathetic piece of trash as a human being, and he's even a worse president.


nebish - 1/19/2018 at 03:43 AM

2112

quote:

Trying to blame the Democrats when the Republicans hold both houses of Congress and the presidency is sad and pathetic. Trump and the Republican lead congress own this. I thought Trump was a great negotiator? Doesn't seem like it.


His negotiating skills with political parties that want different things isn't very good. Most recently, he tells them to go off and do something together, to figure it out, and he will support it, only to throw it back in their face when he doesn't like it.

Lindsey Graham today had a take on who Trump is and aside from addressing the racist claims, Graham said, paraphrasing, that Trump got where he is as a street fighter, the fight is over, we need a leader now. And he has yet to rise to that task. Whether or not Trump truly was ever up for being a great negotiator in Washington is fair to question, but in this political climate we live in today a certified master negotiator would be hard pressed to bring these opposing side together. I don't think Trump understands the necessity or importance his position has in rallying support and individual votes among members of his own party let alone those on the other side.

To the other point, the House passed a CR, the Senate needs 60 votes to pass it. Even if every Republican were to support it in the Senate they would require 9 Democrats to go along with them. It's not all on the Republican shoulders, they can't do this alone.


Bhawk
quote:
I'd lay even odds that most Americans couldn't tell you what a tariff is, regardless of party.


We'd be on the same side of that bet. I can picture a guy with a microphone and camera walking around random places asking random Americans questions - I cringe at some of the responses we might hear! But yeah, not everyone even calls it a tariff anymore. But corporations know what the word means and we both know what that means - difficult to say the least. Most Republicans wouldn't support it anyway (unless Trump can negotiate them into it


2112
quote:
I'm also sure you realize that with increased tariffs on imported goods comes with increased consumer prices, which likely will slow retail sales. Every action has some kind of resulting effect. Chances are that any slight increase in US manufacturing will come with a significant decrease in retail sales due to higher prices. That's why protectionist policies generally don't sour economic growth. I'm not generally opposed to putting tariffs on goods to level the playing field based on environmental regulations, etc. But not to build an unnecessary wall for political purposes.


Sure, that is a likely result to anticipate, the higher prices, just like any additional cost companies incur are also passed along to the consumer...say like more OSHA compliance costs....or anything really, unless they for some reason would be willing to absorb such costs. Would it slow sales? I don't know. If you have a choice of a foreign product and there are other domestic products alternatives available at similar or even lower prices (thanks to the tariff) then it may not slow retail sales. US investment flowed into Mexico to take advantage of the cheap overhead and tariff free importation into the US. Change those variables and investment is likely to take place "here", rather than "there". Success!

I often choose to pay more for made in USA goods. However, sometimes I can get made in USA goods for the same price as an imported product (and on occasion actually cheaper). Having things made here doesn't always mean it costs more at the cash register (or check-out screen).

If I recall our prior conversations, I believe you and I have some common ground on this trade issue. I respect your opposition for using a specific tariff to fund a specific partisan controversial expenditure - just because I know you have honest rejection of the need for a wall and the related cost to do it. I think if we had a whole host of taxes on imports and the money raised from such could fund a whole host of things our government wanted to do, the issue of the wall and using a tax to pay for it would just blend right in with the rest of it all. I'm happy if we can get physical barriers as outlined in the original Secure Fence Act of 2006 - which was cut off at the knees after receiving bipartisan support - and I'm all for using taxes on foreign products to pay for that...or anything else we want to spend the money on.


[Edited on 1/19/2018 by nebish]


2112 - 1/19/2018 at 04:46 AM

"We don't have a reliable partner at the White House to negotiate with," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said. "This has turned into an s-show for no good reason."

Nice to know the 'S" word is now ok to use in public discourse. I'll let my 11 year old know he can use it in school now thanks to our president and fellow members of his party.


BoytonBrother - 1/19/2018 at 09:30 AM

quote:
They are. Note the word "Illegal", as in showing disrespect for the first law of this land they encounter.


I guess you’ve never driven drunk or smoked a joint, or speed. Such a champion of law you are! You don’t fool me bro - you can claim “law” all you want but I know what you are. Something tells me the illegal Asians and Europeans don’t bother you so much. If you find me impossible to talk to, then please take your own hints and F off.


2112 - 1/19/2018 at 09:31 PM

quote:
quote:
They are. Note the word "Illegal", as in showing disrespect for the first law of this land they encounter.


I guess you’ve never driven drunk or smoked a joint, or speed. Such a champion of law you are! You don’t fool me bro - you can claim “law” all you want but I know what you are. Something tells me the illegal Asians and Europeans don’t bother you so much. If you find me impossible to talk to, then please take your own hints and F off.


This isn't a good analogy. We are talking about Dreamers here. People who were brought to this country as children through no fault of their own. This is like arresting a child for possession of stolen property for a gift given to them for Christmas that they had no idea it was stolen. Many of these children have no memory of their "home" country, and are just as American as you and me. Most of them have more respect for the laws of this country than our current president.


nebish - 1/20/2018 at 05:14 AM

quote:
"We don't have a reliable partner at the White House to negotiate with," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said. "This has turned into an s-show for no good reason."

Nice to know the 'S" word is now ok to use in public discourse. I'll let my 11 year old know he can use it in school now thanks to our president and fellow members of his party.


It is funny you say that because when I was a kid and I would hear "ass" or "damn" on network TV I figured if it was good enough for them it was fine for me. My parents did not see it the same way, although my early vocabulary was more colorful than just that.


Muleman1994 - 1/21/2018 at 08:11 PM

The Democrats insist on blanket amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

The law and The American People say otherwise.


jkeller - 1/21/2018 at 09:27 PM

quote:
The Democrats insist on blanket amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

The law and The American People say otherwise.



The Democrats have never called for blanket amnesty. Do a little research, son.


BIGV - 1/21/2018 at 10:10 PM

quote:
quote:
The Democrats insist on blanket amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

The law and The American People say otherwise.



The Democrats have never called for blanket amnesty.


Not yet


jkeller - 1/21/2018 at 10:40 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
The Democrats insist on blanket amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

The law and The American People say otherwise.



The Democrats have never called for blanket amnesty.


Not yet


No, but your Libertarians have called for it. So I guess you are for it.


OriginalGoober - 1/22/2018 at 12:30 AM

No amnesty, no DACA, no lotteries, no chain migration discussions until the border security measures are in place.


2112 - 1/22/2018 at 01:07 AM

quote:
No amnesty, no DACA, no lotteries, no chain migration discussions until the border security measures are in place.


So you think that there are no border security measures in place now? Have you ever been anywhere near the border?


jkeller - 1/22/2018 at 01:14 AM

quote:
No amnesty, no DACA, no lotteries, no chain migration discussions until the border security measures are in place.


Those demands are the reason the government is shut down. So, you do not believe in negotiating? Give and Take? No wonder that you atre so bitter.


Muleman1994 - 1/22/2018 at 04:38 PM

quote:
quote:
No amnesty, no DACA, no lotteries, no chain migration discussions until the border security measures are in place.


Those demands are the reason the government is shut down. So, you do not believe in negotiating? Give and Take? No wonder that you atre so bitter.



The is no negotiating with someone who refuses to negotiate.

The left demands blanket amnesty for millions of illegal aliens and also refuse to put in place the security measures necessary to prevent the illegal immigration issue from continuing.


nebish - 1/22/2018 at 05:32 PM

Here is a story from USA Today that explains the number of people at stake. The DACA illegals are one thing. There are actually millions of others hanging in the balance as well if one is talking about all the "DREAMers" to include unaccompanied children who tried to come here.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/01/18/there-3-5-m-dreamers- and-most-may-face-nightmare/1042134001/


Here is my position. Let's work with these people, let's give them a path to legal status or citizenship. But let's also fix this thing so we can mitigate the illegals who will try and come here in the future, by foot, by plane, by boat, or smuggled. The ones that are here, let's find a way. The ones that want to come here illegally from that point forward, put the clamps on with no exceptions. I think some limitations are in order for the lottery and chain migration issues as well. But there is room for compromise there. Assuming two political parties actually want a solution - most often they just want a political football to toss back and forth.



[Edited on 1/22/2018 by nebish]


Muleman1994 - 1/23/2018 at 10:56 PM

Contrary to what The Democrats and the corrupt liberal media have been feeding, The American People overwhelmingly support a path to citizenship for the DACA folks with increased border security (The Wall), an end to Chain Migration and elimination of the Visa Lottery.

Shock poll: Americans want massive cuts to legal immigration
www.washingtontimes.com

Cutting chain migration even more popular than legalizing Dreamers

Maria Angelica Ramirez carries a large key reading “My Dream” during a protest outside the office of Sen. Marco Rubio, Florida Republican, in support of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.

A government shutdown is in the rearview mirror, but the outlines of a looming immigration deal remain murky with the sides still far apart — though the latest polling suggests President Trump’s bargaining position may be strong.

A Harvard-Harris poll taken in the run-up to the shutdown found Americans strongly support granting citizenship rights to illegal immigrant Dreamers. But they also back Mr. Trump’s three demands for a border wall, limits to the chain of family migration and an end to the Diversity Visa Lottery.

Most striking of all is the public’s demand for lower overall legal immigration — a position that has little traction on Capitol Hill but one that is overwhelmingly popular across the country.

The poll found that most Americans want annual legal immigration capped at 500,000 a year or less — far lower than the current annual rate of 1.3 million.

Those findings challenge what many lawmakers say is the bipartisan consensus on Capitol Hill that while illegal immigration is to be discouraged, high levels of legal immigration are necessary for the nation’s image and its economy.

That is one of the positions likely to be tested as Congress begins a sprint to find an immigration compromise, potentially by Feb. 8 — the deadline for spending set Monday — but definitely by March 5, which is when Dreamers could begin losing legal protections in large numbers.

“For the first time in five years, we will have a debate on the floor of the Senate on the Dream Act and immigration,” said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat.

Mr. Durbin has been leading the push for legalization and partnering with Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, on the plan that has drawn the most attention.

The Graham-Durbin outline would grant eventual citizenship rights to the 690,000 Dreamers protected by Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals and would include more than 1 million others who either didn’t apply for the Obama-era program or who were too old to qualify. The plan would also create legal protections, though not citizenship, for their parents.

The White House said it also is willing to talk about the broader immigrant population and more security and enforcement.

“If they’re willing to do the things we’ve asked to on visa, chain migration, border security, then we’re willing to consider a broader population, but we have not gone there,” Marc Short, the White House’s chief liaison to Congress, told reporters.

On the White House priorities, Mr. Graham and Mr. Durbin called for a 10 percent down payment on the Homeland Security Department’s $18 billion border wall proposal. Mr. Short said the White House needs more of a commitment to make sure future congresses don’t cut the money from the budget.

The Graham-Durbin plan did eliminate the Diversity Visa Lottery but recaptured those 50,000 annual visas and plowed them into a new amnesty program for would-be illegal immigrants from Haiti, El Salvador and other countries struck by natural disasters who have been living in the U.S. under special humanitarian protections for years.

Mr. Short said the White House was pleased that Mr. Graham and Mr. Durbin accepted the end of the visa lottery but that the administration does not want those visas used for another program.
That is likely to be a tough sell for Congress, where support for a high level of legal immigration spans both parties.

Indeed, on Monday Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, emerged from a meeting with Mr. Trump to float the idea of using visas from both the lottery and chain migration and pumping them back into the system to reduce backlogs of people waiting to immigrate legally.
“We ought to reward them,” he said.

The public may see the issue differently, according to the Harvard-Harris poll of American adults, taken Jan. 17-19.

The survey asked respondents what level of overall legal immigration they would like to see.
A stunning 35 percent said the level should be fewer than 250,000 a year, while another 19 percent said it should be 250,000 to 500,000. Combined, they make up a majority looking for a cut of at least 50 percent over current annual levels. Another 18 percent said they want to see 500,000 to 1 million.

Just 19 percent of respondents said they want an increase over 1 million.

Mr. Trump hasn’t said recently what legal immigration number he wants to see, but he has been vocal on changing the way the U.S. picks immigrants. He said skills and ability to assimilate in the U.S. should be weighted over extended family ties.

The poll says voters agree by a 79 percent to 21 percent margin.

That is even bigger than the 77 percent to 23 percent margin that supports legalization for Dreamers.

More than 60 percent of voters said current border security is inadequate, and 54 percent said they support “building a combination of physical and electronic barriers across the U.S.-Mexico border.”

That could boost Mr. Trump’s call for a border wall system, which according to a proposal sent to Capitol Hill this month would build or revamp 722 miles of fencing along the border.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/22/shock-poll-us-wants-massiv e-cuts-legal-immigration/


Harvard Poll: 81 Percent of All Voters Support Reducing Immigration Levels

https://www.numbersusa.com/news/harvard-poll-81-percent-all-voters-support- reducing-immigration-levels


The actual poll results:

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_Jan2018-R efield_RegisteredVoters_XTab.pdf



OriginalGoober - 1/23/2018 at 11:44 PM

Most Americans are for immigration controls not because they are white nationalists but because the kindness is not extended from any other country. They all practice strict immigration policy.


BrerRabbit - 1/23/2018 at 11:50 PM

I miss alloak. He was the only other person here besides me who thinks we should do away with the Mexican border altogether. And he was a solid rightwinger too. Another rightwinger I miss is KCJimmy , whered he go?


nebish - 1/24/2018 at 02:28 AM

Yeah, alloak. Some people just kind of fade away and stop posting and I wonder where they go, what are they doing now. Engaging in political discussions somewhere else, or just dropped it? But in alloak's case, seemed he was kind of opening some new chapter in his life or something if I recall. LOL maybe he is better off not having to come in the WP to post! I like it here though, just wish we had some more activity. I know alloak enjoyed it here too when he was active.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://hittintheweb.com/

Url of this website:
http://hittintheweb.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=145869