• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sanders' immigration plan: Halt deportations, abolish ICE, welcome 50K 'climate migrants,' give welf

Exactice said:
Express Immigration Clause? Who said anything about express? I stated that the exact opposite. Its not an express or faster or expedited. They are able to by past cost that I had to pay as well as certain support and care issues. These people come in and receive aid and care prior to even filling out a form. My wife had to fill ALL forms with a Sponsorship of support before she could even enter the country........ Big difference...
Click to expand...

That usually happens with refugees, as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
 
Exactice said:
Yes so it is OK for a pregnant women to intentionally come in her 9 month WITH the INTENT to give birth on American soil so the child obtains birth rights citizenship.
Click to expand...

That's how the rules are written.
 
Nalu said:
Sanders''' immigration plan: Halt deportations, abolish ICE, welcome 50K '''climate migrants,''' give welfare to all | Fox News

"As president, Sanders also would decriminalize illegal border crossings, making it a civil violation.*. . .

"Part of that plan includes breaking up both Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) -- the two main agencies involved on the ground in enforcing immigration law in both communities and at the border. Matters to do with deportation and enforcement would return to the Department of Justice, customs matters to the Treasury and naturalization and citizenship*to the State Department.

"For those immigrants, illegal or not, who are in the country, Sanders accelerates the sometimes-cautious calls by the 2020 Democratic field to include illegal immigrants in welfare programs and other government services such as health care. Under Sanders, everything is on the table for everyone in the country regardless of immigration status. . . .

"Sanders promises that both his “Medicare-for-all” and “College-for-all” plans would be available regardless of immigration status. He also wants to include free universal school meals -- breakfast, lunch, dinner (and snacks) -- regardless of immigration status."

-----

I like most of Sanders's plan, but these 3 items are going to be problems for him. The first 2 are just issues of messaging, but Democrats are notoriously incompetent with messaging.

Conservatives make decriminalization sound like legalization. Sanders doesn't want to legalize illegal immigration. He wants to make it a civil offense rather than a criminal offense.

Conservatives make it sound like the Democrats want to stop enforcing immigration and customs laws altogether. Sanders doesn't want to just abolish ICE and CBP. He wants to restructure them outside of DHS.

The third item is a bigger problem. I can't think of any good messaging myself that is going to enthuse Americans about providing welfare and other government benefits to all immigrants regardless of their status. Good luck with that one, Bernie.

Here's another source for those who, like me, are dubious of FOX. I'm happy to say that if you read both articles objectively, they say about the same thing.

Bernie Sanders releases immigration plan in 2020 Democratic primary
Click to expand...

"Illegal border crossing" has always been an action which could be dealt with as either a "civil" or a "criminal" context (as long as the person was NOT under an "exclusion order" - in which case it has always been a "criminal" matter.

Whether or not restructuring "border security" is a good idea, is something else. If it IS working well, then it probably IS NOT a good idea. If it IS NOT working well, then probably it IS a good idea. The actual mechanics of any restructuring are something else entirely.

As to the third point, I think that Mr. Sanders is flapping his arms all the way down the cliff on that one. Even the Peoples Democratic Monarchy of Canada doesn't do that.
 
Our welfare clause is General and must cover Entry into the Union, and we have a Commerce Clause which implies the Use of Capitalism to solve our problems.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
"Illegal border crossing" has always been an action which could be dealt with as either a "civil" or a "criminal" context (as long as the person was NOT under an "exclusion order" - in which case it has always been a "criminal" matter.
Click to expand...

That's not the way I interpret the law. The first offense is a criminal misdemeanor. Subsequent offenses are criminal felonies.

Whether or not restructuring "border security" is a good idea, is something else. If it IS working well, then it probably IS NOT a good idea. If it IS NOT working well, then probably it IS a good idea. The actual mechanics of any restructuring are something else entirely.
Click to expand...

I don't think I've met a single person in my entire life who thinks that the customs, immigration, and border security systems/processes in the US "work well".

As to the third point, I think that Mr. Sanders is flapping his arms all the way down the cliff on that one. Even the Peoples Democratic Monarchy of Canada doesn't do that.
Click to expand...

On that we agree. Maybe I'll email the Sanders campaign. I can't imagine any circumstance under which I would support this point, but I'd love to know Sanders's thinking on it, at least for discussion purposes.
 
danielpalos said:
That usually happens with refugees, as the least wealthy under our form of Capitalism.
Click to expand...

But they are NOT apply for "refugee" status thats very Different from "Asylum". Secondly there are Laws on the books already for immigration. Finally Aslyum as WELL has criteria that needs to be met.

Wealth HAS Nothing to do with any of that.

If you are Legitimate Refugee from a foreign country that has been provided refugee status you abide by those statuses. Once they expire you follow the next onset of rules. Either Assimilate and apply for permanent residence status. OR you go back.

Dont conflate morals with laws.
 
Exactice said:
But they are NOT apply for "refugee" status thats very Different from "Asylum". Secondly there are Laws on the books already for immigration. Finally Aslyum as WELL has criteria that needs to be met.

Wealth HAS Nothing to do with any of that.

If you are Legitimate Refugee from a foreign country that has been provided refugee status you abide by those statuses. Once they expire you follow the next onset of rules. Either Assimilate and apply for permanent residence status. OR you go back.

Dont conflate morals with laws.
Click to expand...

there is no law that requires you assimilate. You are confusing asylum status and refugee status. I am not sure what status you came under. It sounds like your wife came under a fiancee visa....the rules changed drastically in 1996....you do know that right?
 
Hamish Howl said:
That's how the rules are written.
Click to expand...

NOT It was Not. You seriously think that the Rule was written back 1868 to allow pregnant women to from a foreign country to give birth so that their child would be inherent US citizens? I at least went and read it. With that read the basis of the the reasons the framers came up with it.


Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia



So then LET me be crystal clear and make sure acknowledge..... YOU are IN FACT OK with an Tour Company soliciting US Citizenship to other countries by telling pregnant women in their final trimester to take a 3 month Tourist VISA and intentionally over say the Visa to GIVE birth on US soil so that their child would then be considered a US Citizen? You are 100% ok with this?

Secondly as a more critical example.

A women Takes a horrific journey 9 months pregnant to illegally enter our southern Border. She then gives birth in the ER to which all taxpaying citizens subsidizes this cost and with that the CHILD is given Birthright Citizenship. THIS IS 100% ok with you?
 
As if people needed yet another reason not to vote for Sanders.
 
Exactice said:
Yes so it is OK for a pregnant women to intentionally come in her 9 month WITH the INTENT to give birth on American soil so the child obtains birth rights citizenship. Where a company specifically does this with this ILL intent. Gotcha. So you can say that the 14th Amendment was DESIGNED for this right? Nothing to actually do with the protections of the slaves but actually intended for pregnant mothers to which there was an expressed limitation to non foreign representatives... but yeah... I guess you disregards simple facts.


As for Relevant laws... Yes.... odd as its a VERY simple get around the law..... FACT of the matter is 70% of all Asylum claims are denied due to not meeting the criteria, and secondly yes getting caught OUTSIDE of a Legal point of entry... some what enables them to disregard LEGAL points of entry in the first place NO? I am seems pretty obvious... But I guess you miss that as well?
Click to expand...

The women coming from Central America aren't coming here to give birth on US soil...they are coming to not die at the hands of cartel, gangs and death squads created by their governments with the assistance of the US.
 
ClaraD said:
there is no law that requires you assimilate. You are confusing asylum status and refugee status. I am not sure what status you came under. It sounds like your wife came under a fiancee visa....the rules changed drastically in 1996....you do know that right?
Click to expand...

Hey ClaraD! Lont time. Lets clarify a couple of ITEMS.

My comment is in direct response to the other poster. As you are Correct EACH level of VISA has different requirements. MY illicit response though is the fact that I am NOT for decriminalizing "illegal immigration" Most of those under the posters comment had to "break the law" first to then qualify for some type of immigration status.


You are pretty much correct about NO law to "assimilate" BUT.....and this is a very thing But..... Do you NOT have to "assimilate" to the HOST countries LAWS?


The Poster stated "express immigration clause" to which i agreed that there is NOTHING of the sort. YET because the highlight is the southern border. intrinsically they have a faster chance to reach our borders/immigration status then say an Asian Immigrant whom has a body of water that separates them. They could enter the US by plane, but at that point they need a passport/ID and likely cant make it past customs to enter our US.


YET we allow people from the southern border to enter our country in "illegal manners" (Not Tourist VISA application, some without a proper form of ID) When they get caught at either the legal port of entry OR NOT....they claim asylum to which 70% of these claims are denied because they do NOT meet the requirement.

Yet they may get an expedited case or even a chance at a case worker to which the Asian Immigrant, the middle eastern immigrant, the European Immigrant cant even get to our customs desk to even try?


Does that make sense?
 
ClaraD said:
The women coming from Central America aren't coming here to give birth on US soil...they are coming to not die at the hands of cartel, gangs and death squads created by their governments with the assistance of the US.
Click to expand...

Lets be 100% clear.

1) I did NOT state a specific location as Central America is NOT exclusive to the abuse of "Birth Right Citizenship" can we agree?
2) Yes it is FACTUAL that NOT all women are coming here to give birth on US soil. SO if that is the case then... Those circumstances we should say the child that is incidentally born on our soil does NOT qualify as a US citizen MUCH like how the Original framers designed the 14th amendment with the caveat that foreign representatives are exclude from the 14th.
2a) IF they still want their children or themselves to gain US residency and thus Citizenship apply it in the SAME manner that is legal and their legal predecessors.


3) Being real for a moment. Can you establish your case that "they are coming to not die at the hands of cartels" As we see 70% of those asylum case are denied only 30% are legitimate. The edification is VERY low to your point. I WILL graciously accept as I FULLY accept LEGAL migration, NOT illegal or false statements or NON qualifying statements.

3a) Can we agree that this means 30% or 3 out of 10 women whom come with your "escaping from cartel" are actually legit....... this is NOT my data this is the CBP/ICE/USCIS data.
 
If you create a reasonable immigration reform, plus a status for the nearly 10 million people already here, conditions being met you have a tremendous new source of income. First, it should be limited to people who have been here for 5 years or more, all taxes paid and up to date, no criminal record, priority for those who have an immediate relative that is either a US citizen or legal resident, especially those who have direct family in the US Armed forces (we really should not deport spouses, parents or step parents of soldiers serving.) If you implement a fine for the illegal status they held based on the amount of time they were here out of status (such as $1500 for those here 5 years and up to $5,000 depending on time here with no status....if there are 10 million here and just a medium rate of $2000, fines alone will be $20B and that doesn't even factor in taxes, back taxes and the $600 -$900 for the conditional residency. If it is only $600, that is a total of another $6B on top of the fine so $26B in revenue that can pay for your wall that you want so damn much....but we should really not use it for a wall, we need it for infrastructure, improved border security(smart technology) and border patrol.
Should I move on to what the potential windfall is in taxes?
 
ClaraD said:
If you create a reasonable immigration reform, plus a status for the nearly 10 million people already here, conditions being met you have a tremendous new source of income. First, it should be limited to people who have been here for 5 years or more, all taxes paid and up to date, no criminal record, priority for those who have an immediate relative that is either a US citizen or legal resident, especially those who have direct family in the US Armed forces (we really should not deport spouses, parents or step parents of soldiers serving.) If you implement a fine for the illegal status they held based on the amount of time they were here out of status (such as $1500 for those here 5 years and up to $5,000 depending on time here with no status....if there are 10 million here and just a medium rate of $2000, fines alone will be $20B and that doesn't even factor in taxes, back taxes and the $600 -$900 for the conditional residency. If it is only $600, that is a total of another $6B on top of the fine so $26B in revenue that can pay for your wall that you want so damn much....but we should really not use it for a wall, we need it for infrastructure, improved border security(smart technology) and border patrol.
Should I move on to what the potential windfall is in taxes?
Click to expand...

This all sounds good....but keep in mind...most people that are in that situation are living hand to mouth as it is, how do you expect them to pay $2,000 or $5,000 or even $500 ?

Because I guarantee you, as soon as the above is implemented, that's the next argument.
 
ClaraD said:
If you create a reasonable immigration reform, plus a status for the nearly 10 million people already here, conditions being met you have a tremendous new source of income. First, it should be limited to people who have been here for 5 years or more, all taxes paid and up to date, no criminal record, priority for those who have an immediate relative that is either a US citizen or legal resident, especially those who have direct family in the US Armed forces (we really should not deport spouses, parents or step parents of soldiers serving.) If you implement a fine for the illegal status they held based on the amount of time they were here out of status (such as $1500 for those here 5 years and up to $5,000 depending on time here with no status....if there are 10 million here and just a medium rate of $2000, fines alone will be $20B and that doesn't even factor in taxes, back taxes and the $600 -$900 for the conditional residency. If it is only $600, that is a total of another $6B on top of the fine so $26B in revenue that can pay for your wall that you want so damn much....but we should really not use it for a wall, we need it for infrastructure, improved border security(smart technology) and border patrol.
Should I move on to what the potential windfall is in taxes?
Click to expand...

See this is The AWESOME types of discussion that SHOULD happen..... I wish some politicians would actually do their JOB.


While I do NOT agree with all Clara's points, the fact remains she put stuff on the TABLE to discuss..... things that make sense OR at the least tweak-able to bipartisanship. But unfortunately...... reasonable minds do NOT exist.


1) There may be some difficulties establishing the 10million already here..... BUT I can surely reason with your 5+ years or more, paid up taxes NO criminal record.
2) Agreed with those that have a immediate relative with US Citizenship
3) I do want to clarify the being in the US Armed Forces BY legal means. If they used illegal methods (forged documents) to circumvent then the rule of law applies in my mind.
4) Fines would be a heck of an Idea, but I have this feeling that some may not be able to afford it. The deterrent is there but the magic "number $" , I have no idea LOL


Anyways Great thoughts Clara seriously!
 
Exactice said:
See this is The AWESOME types of discussion that SHOULD happen..... I wish some politicians would actually do their JOB.


While I do NOT agree with all Clara's points, the fact remains she put stuff on the TABLE to discuss..... things that make sense OR at the least tweak-able to bipartisanship. But unfortunately...... reasonable minds do NOT exist.


1) There may be some difficulties establishing the 10million already here..... BUT I can surely reason with your 5+ years or more, paid up taxes NO criminal record.
2) Agreed with those that have a immediate relative with US Citizenship
3) I do want to clarify the being in the US Armed Forces BY legal means. If they used illegal methods (forged documents) to circumvent then the rule of law applies in my mind.
4) Fines would be a heck of an Idea, but I have this feeling that some may not be able to afford it. The deterrent is there but the magic "number $" , I have no idea LOL


Anyways Great thoughts Clara seriously!
Click to expand...

Agreed, this is exactly what Congress NEEDS to be doing...is offering solutions instead of blame
 
Exactice said:
Hey ClaraD! Lont time. Lets clarify a couple of ITEMS.

My comment is in direct response to the other poster. As you are Correct EACH level of VISA has different requirements. MY illicit response though is the fact that I am NOT for decriminalizing "illegal immigration" Most of those under the posters comment had to "break the law" first to then qualify for some type of immigration status.


You are pretty much correct about NO law to "assimilate" BUT.....and this is a very thing But..... Do you NOT have to "assimilate" to the HOST countries LAWS?


The Poster stated "express immigration clause" to which i agreed that there is NOTHING of the sort. YET because the highlight is the southern border. intrinsically they have a faster chance to reach our borders/immigration status then say an Asian Immigrant whom has a body of water that separates them. They could enter the US by plane, but at that point they need a passport/ID and likely cant make it past customs to enter our US.


YET we allow people from the southern border to enter our country in "illegal manners" (Not Tourist VISA application, some without a proper form of ID) When they get caught at either the legal port of entry OR NOT....they claim asylum to which 70% of these claims are denied because they do NOT meet the requirement.

Yet they may get an expedited case or even a chance at a case worker to which the Asian Immigrant, the middle eastern immigrant, the European Immigrant cant even get to our customs desk to even try?


Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

No, actually they have the exact same rights as someone coming from the Southern border and sometimes more. If a person comes to any port of entry, regardless of country of origin, they can claim asylum. However, saying that 70% don't have legitimate asylum claims is deceptive(maybe not intentionally on your part) what it means is the IJ rejected their argument either due to lack of evidence or a variety of other things. I know of an IJ who has rejected almost 100% of claims, several of the people who he rejected were subsequently killed when returned to their country of origin. Also, some people abandon their claims and either do not appear or leave on their own free will.
I know specifically of a Chinese woman who was pregnant with her 2nd child, she came during the 1 child per couple rule. She claimed asylum, the judge rejected her claim, if I recall it was because she was crying in the court that he rejected her. It was an unreasonable ruling. She did get it overturned on appeal, however, that rejection still shows up in that 70% claim and some people abandon their case after they are initially denied because appeals are very expensive.
 
sjmay said:
This all sounds good....but keep in mind...most people that are in that situation are living hand to mouth as it is, how do you expect them to pay $2,000 or $5,000 or even $500 ?

Because I guarantee you, as soon as the above is implemented, that's the next argument.
Click to expand...

I am living that situation, my husband is waiting on his asylum hearing in 2021, we have been waiting since 2015. I would gladly forgo one meal a day and take an extra job to have his status become one of conditional resident, regardless of the cost...I already did it once, paying for his immigration attorney. The cost was $7500 so $2000 is a drop in the bucket. The rights activists on either side will never be happy. It doesn't matter what they say, it matters what can actually happen and if the person wants to stay legally, they will figure it out...hell sell your car and ride a bicycle, 2nd mortgage the house, I would sell everything I own.
 
Last edited:
Climate migrants? It appears that CO2-based global warming chooses to be less severe for the United States. CO2 decides to be nasty once the weather passes the southern border. Any weather that passes from Mexico to the US becomes nicer.

CO2 hates where brown people live.
 
ClaraD said:
I am living that situation, my husband is waiting on his asylum hearing in 2021, we have been waiting since 2015. I would gladly forgo one meal a day and take an extra job to have his status become one of conditional resident, regardless of the cost...I already did it once, paying for his immigration attorney. The cost was $7500 so $2000 is a drop in the bucket. The rights activists on either side will never be happy. It doesn't matter what they say, it matters what can actually happen and if the person wants to stay legally, they will figure it out...hell sell your car and ride a bicycle, 2nd mortgage the house, I would sell everything I own.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree with you, you do what you can. What you laid out makes sense, therefore Congress will NEVER entertain the idea of it....

You will have the people on the right saying NO, omg they are lawbreakers etc etc etc....then you have people on the Left that will say, but...no, because they can't pay for it, it's not right....

It's a no-win situation when you have two sides that absolutely refuse to bend over everything.....
 
Exactice said:
But they are NOT apply for "refugee" status thats very Different from "Asylum". Secondly there are Laws on the books already for immigration. Finally Aslyum as WELL has criteria that needs to be met.

Wealth HAS Nothing to do with any of that.

If you are Legitimate Refugee from a foreign country that has been provided refugee status you abide by those statuses. Once they expire you follow the next onset of rules. Either Assimilate and apply for permanent residence status. OR you go back.

Dont conflate morals with laws.
Click to expand...

refugees usually ask for asylum.

besides, once the US has Jurisdiction, natural rights apply.

show us any necessary and proper excuse for seemingly arbitrary and capricious and implied immigration powers.
 
ClaraD said:
No, actually they have the exact same rights as someone coming from the Southern border and sometimes more. If a person comes to any port of entry, regardless of country of origin, they can claim asylum. However, saying that 70% don't have legitimate asylum claims is deceptive(maybe not intentionally on your part) what it means is the IJ rejected their argument either due to lack of evidence or a variety of other things. I know of an IJ who has rejected almost 100% of claims, several of the people who he rejected were subsequently killed when returned to their country of origin. Also, some people abandon their claims and either do not appear or leave on their own free will.
I know specifically of a Chinese woman who was pregnant with her 2nd child, she came during the 1 child per couple rule. She claimed asylum, the judge rejected her claim, if I recall it was because she was crying in the court that he rejected her. It was an unreasonable ruling. She did get it overturned on appeal, however, that rejection still shows up in that 70% claim and some people abandon their case after they are initially denied because appeals are very expensive.
Click to expand...

Hey Clara, So my apologies as I do not know your examples or have experience from your examples so I only can go off what I can research and of course the data again comes from "legitimate" research results not pulling it from bias news media but pure personal dr google reading LOL


With that being said I AM sure there are outliers BUT I hardly think that it is common or the immigration lawyers and ACLU would be having FIELD days in court over prejudice type cases as your example.


lets even say to be clear 50/50 Lets say 50% of the case are legitimately denied.... THATS still a very LARGE amount of fraudulent or disqualifying cases. If it was in reverse 30% denial 70% approved. I would think i would have more "understanding" but the track records imply that more cases are fraudulent then not.

NOW then lets apply another thought....... Those that are intentfully devaluing the Asylum for those that are LEGITIMATELY trying to claim. That is were BLAME should be applied to. There are again lets say 50% that are apply fraudulently. Do you agree or disagree?

30% approved, leaving 70% denied, Of the 70% denied 20% of could potentially be errors or bad cases, BUT that still leaves 50% that are likely fraudulent or non qualifying?
 
danielpalos said:
refugees usually ask for asylum.

besides, once the US has Jurisdiction, natural rights apply.

show us any necessary and proper excuse for seemingly arbitrary and capricious and implied immigration powers.
Click to expand...


Refugees CAN ask for asylum. But Generally some type of aid is deemed by the state department. that is why there is 2 different terms. Refugee status Vs Asylum status.

YES once US has jurisdiction natural rights apply. BUT again APPLY based on the initial filling. Refugee Status VS Asylum.


Refugees & Asylum | USCIS

Refugees
Refugee status is a form of protection that may be granted to people who meet the definition of refugee and who are of special humanitarian concern to the United States. Refugees are generally people outside of their country who are unable or unwilling to return home because they fear serious harm. For a legal definition of refugee, see section 101(a)(42) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

You may seek a referral for refugee status only from outside of the United States. For more information about refugees, see the Refugees section.

Asylum
Asylum status is a form of protection available to people who:

Meet the definition of refugee
Are already in the United States
Are seeking admission at a port of entry



Do you see my bold statement in regards to Asylum. There is a REASON by its been abused and devalued. MORE so to very Clara, Why people WHO ACTUALY deserve it are having a VERY hard time actually getting it.... Due to those that choose to abuse it...... THATS whats SAD


There is a defined difference of application.
 
Last edited:
Nalu said:
Sanders''' immigration plan: Halt deportations, abolish ICE, welcome 50K '''climate migrants,''' give welfare to all | Fox News

"As president, Sanders also would decriminalize illegal border crossings, making it a civil violation.*. . .

"Part of that plan includes breaking up both Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) -- the two main agencies involved on the ground in enforcing immigration law in both communities and at the border. Matters to do with deportation and enforcement would return to the Department of Justice, customs matters to the Treasury and naturalization and citizenship*to the State Department.

"For those immigrants, illegal or not, who are in the country, Sanders accelerates the sometimes-cautious calls by the 2020 Democratic field to include illegal immigrants in welfare programs and other government services such as health care. Under Sanders, everything is on the table for everyone in the country regardless of immigration status. . . .

"Sanders promises that both his “Medicare-for-all” and “College-for-all” plans would be available regardless of immigration status. He also wants to include free universal school meals -- breakfast, lunch, dinner (and snacks) -- regardless of immigration status."

-----

I like most of Sanders's plan, but these 3 items are going to be problems for him. The first 2 are just issues of messaging, but Democrats are notoriously incompetent with messaging.

Conservatives make decriminalization sound like legalization. Sanders doesn't want to legalize illegal immigration. He wants to make it a civil offense rather than a criminal offense.

Conservatives make it sound like the Democrats want to stop enforcing immigration and customs laws altogether. Sanders doesn't want to just abolish ICE and CBP. He wants to restructure them outside of DHS.

The third item is a bigger problem. I can't think of any good messaging myself that is going to enthuse Americans about providing welfare and other government benefits to all immigrants regardless of their status. Good luck with that one, Bernie.

Here's another source for those who, like me, are dubious of FOX. I'm happy to say that if you read both articles objectively, they say about the same thing.

Bernie Sanders releases immigration plan in 2020 Democratic primary
Click to expand...

Sanders is a socialist, he wants open borders. It's pretty simple. Decriminalization pretty much has the same effect as legalization, it's just semantics. Sanders plan is to remove borders and allow massive immigration. Sort of like castrating a man and calling him a man. In form but not in practice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom