Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Immigration issues back on the table

Maximum Peach





Posts: 8673
(8698 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/10/2018 at 12:49 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?

 
Replies:

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5082
(5091 all sites)
Registered: 6/1/2009
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/10/2018 at 03:43 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



 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3771
(3766 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/10/2018 at 06:34 PM
Mule, if we cut and paste your response, will we find online like your previous one? Just how many posts do you plagiarize?
 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8673
(8698 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/10/2018 at 07:27 PM
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.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3459
(3457 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/10/2018 at 07:52 PM
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.

 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2659
(2658 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/10/2018 at 08:52 PM
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.

 

____________________

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 9229
(9228 all sites)
Registered: 8/16/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/10/2018 at 09:47 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.
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?.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8673
(8698 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2018 at 08:17 AM
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?

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8673
(8698 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2018 at 08:27 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.


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.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8673
(8698 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2018 at 08:40 AM
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




 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8673
(8698 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2018 at 08:44 AM
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

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18714
(18774 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2018 at 11:21 AM
"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.......

 

____________________


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3322
(3328 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2018 at 12:36 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.


 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8673
(8698 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2018 at 01:49 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?

 

A Peach Supreme



Karma:
Posts: 2659
(2658 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2018 at 09:01 PM
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.



 

____________________

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 67688
(68049 all sites)
Registered: 11/28/2001
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2018 at 09:36 PM
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...........
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 46297
(46298 all sites)
Registered: 7/8/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2018 at 10:52 PM
Asian illegal immigration has grown 200% in the last few years.

Wall around San Francisco?

 

____________________
"Live every week like it's Shark Week." - Tracy Jordan

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8673
(8698 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2018 at 11:30 PM
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".

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8673
(8698 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/11/2018 at 11:47 PM
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.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5241
(5241 all sites)
Registered: 7/18/2010
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/12/2018 at 12:05 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.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8673
(8698 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/12/2018 at 01:21 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/

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3322
(3328 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/12/2018 at 08:08 AM
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.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5149
(5148 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/12/2018 at 11:09 AM
quote:
Asian illegal immigration has grown 200% in the last few years.

Wall around San Francisco?


How about one all around California?

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3459
(3457 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/12/2018 at 03:12 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.

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8673
(8698 all sites)
Registered: 4/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 1/12/2018 at 03:40 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.
 
<<  1    2    3  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com