Networks to air Pelosi, Schumer rebuttal to Trump

ttwtt78640 said:

Pelosi and Schumer represent those that favor sanctuary states/cities. It should not be hard to figure out that their version of "compromise" means saying no to anything deemed to be (too?) effective at stopping or removing illegal immigrants.

Click to expand...

So take that up with them. Unlike Trump, I never voted for, donated to, or supported Pelosi and Schumer.

What has Trump offered in return for his big beautiful wall that apparently Mexico isn't paying for after all?

jmotivator said:

Do you have a comment that is on the topic?

Click to expand...

Sure, not a problem for me. Trump was totally out of place, almost awkward in his 'address to the nation'. It was a big zero, nothing to watch, nothing new. Even he thought it was a total waste of time, he would rather be at a rally to raise money for his 2020 re-election. But hours before this (cough-cough) important address to the nation, emails went out to constituents begging for money for the 2020 campaign.

Trump in an email Tuesday afternoon asked supporters to donate to his "Official Secure the Border Fund" through the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee for the Trump campaign and the Republican National Committee.

"We need to raise $500,000 in ONE DAY. I want to know who stood with me when it mattered most so I’ve asked my team to send me a list of EVERY AMERICAN PATRIOT who donates to the Official Secure the Border Fund," read the email written in Trump's name.

"Please make a special contribution of $5 by 9 PM EST to our Official Secure the Border Fund to have your name sent to me after my speech," it added.


https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/us/politics/donald-trump-speech.html

[snip] Yet privately, Mr. Trump dismissed his own new strategy as pointless. In an off-the-record lunch with television anchors hours before the address, he made clear in blunt terms that he was not inclined to give the speech or go to Texas, but was talked into it by advisers, according to two people briefed on the discussion who asked not to be identified sharing details.

“It’s not going to change a damn thing, but I’m still doing it,” Mr. Trump said of the border visit, according to one of the people, who was in the room. The trip was merely a photo opportunity, he said. “But,” he added, gesturing at his communications aides Bill Shine, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Kellyanne Conway, “these people behind you say it’s worth it.”[end]

tres borrachos said:

So take that up with them. Unlike Trump, I never voted for, donated to, or supported Pelosi and Schumer.

What has Trump offered in return for his big beautiful wall that apparently Mexico isn't paying for after all?

Click to expand...

Decreased illegal immigration by those now crossing the Southern border. Not much, I freely admit, but far more than demorats are offering.

ttwtt78640 said:

Decreased illegal immigration by those now crossing the Southern border. Not much, I freely admit, but far more than demorats are offering.

Click to expand...

I should have been clearer I guess.

What tangible item on the Democrats' wish list has Trump offered in return for his big beautiful wall? You know - like what Presidents who actually knew how to govern managed to do in the last 250+ years, like Reagan and Clinton and Eisenhower and others, to get what they want?

HumblePi said:

I think Democrats can already count on the votes of Puerto Rican's in the 2020 presidential election. Democrats don't have to work very hard to convince the majority of the voters of the 3.4 million population of Puerto Rico how little Trump and the Republican Congress care about them and what disregard and even contempt for their welfare those politicians have for their welfare.

Click to expand...

They can only vote in 2020 if they live on the Mainland

tres borrachos said:

I'm following along perfectly fine. What is wrong with wanting people to become citizens and voting?

Click to expand...

I don't know, what is wrong with people wanting to become citizens? Is there anything wrong with people wanting to come here and get benefits, handouts, or commit crimes and kill people? Are you good with those people coming here too?

tres borrachos said:

I should have been clearer I guess.

What tangible item on the Democrats' wish list has Trump offered in return for his big beautiful wall? You know - like what Presidents who actually knew how to govern managed to do in the last 250+ years, like Reagan and Clinton and Eisenhower and others, to get what they want?

Click to expand...

Reagan traded amnesty (for 3M illegal immigrants) for border security and never got it. Why should something have to be traded for adequately funding the enforcement of current immigration law?

Democrats in California NEED the border to be unsecured to keep their dominance of California.

Atomic Kid said:

Years ago it was mostly young Mexican men looking to find work in the US and these people would actively seek to evade capture by the border patrol. Now it's mostly migrants from Central America fleeing extreme poverty and violence in their home countries who come seeking an opportunity to apply for asylum in the US. In other words they are trying to do it the right way but Trump illegal directive to border security to refuse them entry and turn these people away from legal ports of entry and back into Mexico is forcing these take more dangerous forays into remote and barren stretches of the border. These people actually go seek the border patrol almost from the second they come across to turn themselves in. They not trying evade the border patrol at all.

Click to expand...

You do understand Asylum skerts our legal immigration system for green cards right?
A person who is granted asylum and resides within the united states for more then 1 year can apply for a change of status request and receive a green card for permanent residence.

How you do think that makes or system look when people who are trying to come into the US the legal way by apply for a green card from within there own country? Doesn't it incentivize people to say screw it and try and cross the border and claim asylum.

ttwtt78640 said:

Reagan traded amnesty (for 3M illegal immigrants) for border security and never got it. Why should something have to be traded for adequately funding the enforcement of current immigration law?

Click to expand...

I think the problem a lot of Democrats up with this wall is not about enhancing border security. Most experts on the subject ( I know conservatives hate experts, but still) are telling us that the resources could be much better spent in other ways, like aerial surveillance, motion detectors, etc.... if you really think there is such a serious problem at the border, which is questionable, these might be better use of resources. Trump may find that the Democrats would be more open to such measures than just a giant wall.

So what’s wrong with a wall? Well, as explained above, experts are telling us it’s not the most effective use of our resources. But more than that, it’s deeply offensive. Symbolically, it is a very insulting thing to do to our largest trading partner, not to mention the rest of South America. It’s good to not insult the entire planet. This wall is the symbolic equivalent of a giant middle finger stuck out to all of Central and South America, and probably just as effective in getting the actual work done.

SLC said:

They can only vote in 2020 if they live on the Mainland

Click to expand...

That's correct. Residents of Puerto Rico can vote for the 2020 presidential nominee election in Puerto Rico, but must reside in the United States to cast their vote for president. Puerto Rico holds a primary election in the spring of each presidential election year. Then the parties choose delegates to the Republican and Democratic National Convention, who are pledged to vote at that convention for the winners of Puerto Rico's primary, but that's the end of their participation in the presidential election.

However, according to the 2015 census, there were 5 million Puerto Ricans living in the United States. The exodus from Puerto Rico after hurricane Maria will likely increase the voter registrations of Puerto Ricans in several states, particularly the state of Florida. it's very unlikely that anyone from Puerto Rico who hops on a plane, gets a driver's license and a mailing address would vote Republican after hurricane Maria. They would have voting rights for all elections - State, Senate or Presidential election.

ttwtt78640 said:

Reagan traded amnesty (for 3M illegal immigrants) for border security and never got it. Why should something have to be traded for adequately funding the enforcement of current immigration law?

Click to expand...

Why waste funds on an exorbitantly expensive medieval technology, such as wall, that we weren't suppose to pay for and will do next to nothing to alleviate most if not all of the claims Trump made in that 10 minute waste of national air time last night? There are better and more effective solutions that would cost less than a wall. Everybody agrees that border security is vital. There is no dispute there. But there is a dispute as to policy and that is essentially why this government has been shutdown. Because of a dispute over. policy and there is no reason that should have to happen. We can open up and fund all the portions of the government that are currently closed and unfunded and have an open debate on border policy without holding 800,000 federal workers and the families and the families of ordinary American families who are need of these government services hostage. The game has changed in Washington. You can't just power through stuff anymore without the other party's participation. The name of the political game now is compromise. You want something. You need to be willing to give something. That's way worked for many many years in Washington.

ttwtt78640 said:

Not directly, but they are people counted by the census so they increase the number of house seats and thus EC votes in states like CA and TX which have lots of them.

Click to expand...

Not that GOP hasn't found a way to get around that with targeted gerrymandering which has resulted in the GOP gaining more representatives etc. even while usually being behind in the popular vote totals.

dobieg said:

How the hell would I know what was offered behind closed doors?

Click to expand...

Yet you insisted that one side should make a compromise

From what I gather, they haven't tried to compromise at all.

Click to expand...

So now you know what was offered behind closed doors?

ataraxia said:

I think the problem a lot of Democrats up with this wall is not about enhancing border security. Most experts on the subject ( I know conservatives hate experts, but still) are telling us that the resources could be much better spent in other ways, like aerial surveillance, motion detectors, etc.... if you really think there is such a serious problem at the border, which is questionable, these might be better use of resources. Trump may find that the Democrats would be more open to such measures than just a giant wall.

So what’s wrong with a wall? Well, as explained above, experts are telling us it’s not the most effective use of our resources. But more than that, it’s deeply offensive. Symbolically, it is a very insulting thing to do to our largest trading partner, not to mention the rest of South America. It’s good to not insult the entire planet. This wall is the symbolic equivalent of a giant middle finger stuck out to all of Central and South America, and probably just as effective in getting the actual work done.

Click to expand...

What, exactly, is stopping demorats from proposing and funding those measures now? Why is a border fence (deemed moral and fully supported by demorats) any less insulting (or immoral?) than a border wall (which is nothing but a taller fence)?

Atomic Kid said:

Why waste funds on an exorbitantly expensive medieval technology, such as wall, that we weren't suppose to pay for and will do next to nothing to alleviate most if not all of the claims Trump made in that 10 minute waste of national air time last night? There are better and more effective solutions that would cost less than a wall. Everybody agrees that border security is vital. There is no dispute there. But there is a dispute as to policy and that is essentially why this government has been shutdown. Because of a dispute over. policy and there is no reason that should have to happen. We can open up and fund all the portions of the government that are currently closed and unfunded and have an open debate on border policy without holding 800,000 federal workers and the families and the families of ordinary American families who are need of these government services hostage. The game has changed in Washington. You can't just power through stuff anymore without the other party's participation. The name of the political game now is compromise. You want something. You need to be willing to give something. That's way worked for many many years in Washington.

Click to expand...

OK, then why are thousands arrested after illegally crossing the border every month?

SLC said:

Good the American people will realize Pelosi and Schumer just hypocrites.

Click to expand...

Polling on the wall and the shutdown are not going in this direction.

Atomic Kid said:

Not that GOP hasn't found a way to get around that with targeted gerrymandering which has resulted in the GOP gaining more representatives etc. even while usually being behind in the popular vote totals.

Click to expand...

But cinderblocks...

jdog21 said:

You do understand Asylum skerts our legal immigration system for green cards right?
A person who is granted asylum and resides within the united states for more then 1 year can apply for a change of status request and receive a green card for permanent residence.

How you do think that makes or system look when people who are trying to come into the US the legal way by apply for a green card from within there own country? Doesn't it incentivize people to say screw it and try and cross the border and claim asylum.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call it skirting at all since in order to be able to remain in the US they must first meet the definition of an asylee or refugee. You can't just say screw it i'm going to become an asylee. And if it's taking longer than a year to process these people that that would be an indication that immigration courts need more support in the way of staffing and facilities. A wall won't help with or stop any of that. A green card is a "permit" to work and permanently live in the US. Green card receivers are expected to the USA their new home by applying for citizenship for five years. In the meantime they must file a federal tax return each year are still subject to immigration laws and and can loose their green card status if they violate any immigration or criminal laws. And how you think it makes our country look when we violate the law by not allowing these people to present themselves at a legal port of entry?

ttwtt78640 said:

But cinderblocks...

Click to expand...

So in other words if you can't elections legitimately by the old fashion method of getting more votes than other guy. You just change the rules instead making your case directly for why they should vote for you and not the other guy.

Atomic Kid said:

So in other words if you can't elections legitimately by the old fashion method of getting more votes than other guy. You just change the rules instead making your case directly for why they should vote for you and not the other guy.

Click to expand...

WTF does that have to do with the thread topic?

ttwtt78640 said:

OK, then why are thousands arrested after illegally crossing the border every month?

Click to expand...

Apparently you haven't noticed that number of people being arrested at the border as steadily and dramatically decreased since 2000. So obviously some of what we have done is working and while there is still room for improvement it's quite clear that there is no immigration crisis at our southern border.

Atomic Kid said:

I wouldn't call it skirting at all since in order to be able to remain in the US they must first meet the definition of an asylee or refugee. You can't just say screw it i'm going to become an asylee. And if it's taking longer than a year to process these people that that would be an indication that immigration courts need more support in the way of staffing and facilities. A wall won't help with or stop any of that. A green card is a "permit" to work and permanently live in the US. Green card receivers are expected to the USA their new home by applying for citizenship for five years. In the meantime they must file a federal tax return each year are still subject to immigration laws and and can loose their green card status if they violate any immigration or criminal laws. And how you think it makes our country look when we violate the law by not allowing these people to present themselves at a legal port of entry?

Click to expand...

Your right that for the process to take place they have to be granted asylum. But getting asylum provides them with a quicker path to a green card then through or immigration process and places another obstacle on the system when trying to only let in certain amounts of people due them giving out regular green cards and then having to add all the asylee's on top of it.'

With a current back log of more then 5,000 where is the funding for more courts and judges to process all these people?

As far as making us look, most countries go by internal law which would require all asylum seekers to be forced to ask for asylum in the nearest safe country, so for these central American people that would be Mexico and not the US. So I think we'd still look good.

ttwtt78640 said:

Reagan traded amnesty (for 3M illegal immigrants) for border security and never got it. Why should something have to be traded for adequately funding the enforcement of current immigration law?

Click to expand...

So you agree that Reagan t5ried to compromise, which is exactly what I said.

What has Trump offered to the Democrats in return for his big beautiful wall?

ttwtt78640 said:

WTF does that have to do with the thread topic?

Click to expand...

You just said yourself that immigrants can impact elections by redistricting process and a few other posters here have suggested that the Democrats want open borders (which is a red herring because it's completely untrue) because these immigrants will overwhelmingly become democratic voters. So instead of growing their party by making more inclusive and appeal to these people for their votes by showing how their policies can benefit them. The GOP would rather dilute or prevent their voting through gerrymandering and targeted voting restriction and requirements as we saw in North Carolina, Georgia and etc. this past midterm election. There is no future for the GOP in remaining the party of older white christian males because it is and will literally begin to slowly die out.