• 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!

Looks like a deal Trump would go for...

Kal'Stang

Kal'Stang

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2009
Messages
42,744
Reaction score
22,569
Location
Bonners Ferry ID USA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Rather than focus obsessively on the frivolous Gang of Six bill in the Senate, news coverage needs to pay more attention to the “Secure America’s Future Act” by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, the only DACA proposal out there worth the attention of conservatives. As part of negotiations yesterday to get the stopgap funding bill passed, the Freedom Caucus got a commitment from Speaker Paul Ryan to bring it up for a vote.

The bill includes the measures the White House has insisted be in any immigration bill, plus some more: It abolishes the extended-family chain migration categories and the visa lottery, authorizes wall funding and extra border agents, cracks down on sanctuary cities and asylum abuse, and mandates E-Verify.
Click to expand...

Goodlatte’s Immigration Bill – A Worthy Compromise

The White House has already endorsed this as it appears to have everything Trump wanted.
 
Kal'Stang said:
Goodlatte’s Immigration Bill – A Worthy Compromise

The White House has already endorsed this as it appears to have everything Trump wanted.
Click to expand...

We have been down this road before with these so called immigration compromises so I have to ask the following-

1.Is there anything in there that prevents another president from issuing his own DACA,DAPA or anything else that lets illegals stay in the country? Because will be in this mess again if we get another Obama, Bush, Reagan or some other piece of **** who kisses the asses of illegals.

2.Is there anything in there that specifies how much funding and prevents the removal of that funding? Because saying we'll do this,this and that is all great and stuff but it means nothing without funding and means nothing if that funding can be yanked.

3.Is there anything that prevents the president's appointees to various government positions from undermining those laws? Because none of that stuff means anything if a president can appoint illegal alien ass kissers to undermine our immigration laws.
 
This is not a "clean bill" for DACA so it will, no doubt, be rejected by those that see DACA as a vehicle for legalizing and granting "a path to citizenship" for (up to 3 million?) "true dreamers" (all illegal immigrants that arrived as minors and lack adult felony convictions).

The real motive of many DACA demanders is to create millions (about 6 million) of new demorat voters for life. That, obviously, requires that the "path to citizenship" be included and no changes to chain immigration policy (effectively adding DAPA back to DACA).
 
RetiredUSN said:
70% of American voters would go with this.
Click to expand...

The majority did not favor the latest "shutdown" - it happened anyway. A DACA "deal" (as described in the OP with these serious restrictions) would only be acceptable to a handful of "red state" demorat Senators and any restrictions omitted would likely remove the support of many "red state" republicant Senators still leaving the measure DOA (receiving less than 60 votes) in the Senate.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
This is not a "clean bill" for DACA so it will, no doubt, be rejected by those that see DACA as a vehicle for legalizing and granting "a path to citizenship" for (up to 3 million?) "true dreamers" (all illegal immigrants that arrived as minors and lack adult felony convictions).

The real motive of many DACA demanders is to create millions (about 6 million) of new demorat voters for life. That, obviously, requires that the "path to citizenship" be included and no changes to chain immigration policy (effectively adding DAPA back to DACA).
Click to expand...

Considering some of the statistics that chain immigration and the diversity visa programs comes with, wouldn't the continuation of those programs be a deal breaker?
 
eohrnberger said:
Considering some of the statistics that chain immigration and the diversity visa programs comes with, wouldn't the continuation of those programs be a deal breaker?
Click to expand...

To you or I perhaps but we don't matter in the big picture.

Not to Trump - he just needs to convince himself that he "won". If Trump gets some wall funding, perhaps a few more border patrol agents and DACA (in any form) he will claim to have "gotten enough for now".

The professional liars that Schumer controls (and most of the MSM worships) will not give Trump any more than necessary. The real prize is converting 3 to 6 million "illegal" immigrants to some form of officially protected status - that translates directly to many millions more demorat votes for life.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
This is not a "clean bill" for DACA so it will, no doubt, be rejected by those that see DACA as a vehicle for legalizing and granting "a path to citizenship" for (up to 3 million?) "true dreamers" (all illegal immigrants that arrived as minors and lack adult felony convictions).

The real motive of many DACA demanders is to create millions (about 6 million) of new demorat voters for life. That, obviously, requires that the "path to citizenship" be included and no changes to chain immigration policy (effectively adding DAPA back to DACA).
Click to expand...

And is that not the motivation for Republicans to try and prevent a path to citizenship? They fear the inevitability of demographics which would reduce the Republican party to the dustbin of history as the number of white voters shrinks over the decades. The GOP is well aware that their ideology and beliefs are not in tune with most people who are not white and they fear a America which is not favorable disposed to the Republican.... white ..... belief system.

So what they are doing is the same thing as voter suppression laws, defending the Electoral College, embracing gerrymandering - all tricks employed in trying to find a way that they can win elections while still being a firm minority of actual Americans.

That is the ugly little secret about this reality that they do not want to talk about.

If immigrants were enthusiastic supporters of conservatism and Republicanism - the GOP would move heaven and earth to create a path to citizenship for them and get ballots in their hands as soon as humanly possible.
 
haymarket said:
And is that not the motivation for Republicans to try and prevent a path to citizenship? They fear the inevitability of demographics which would reduce the Republican party to the dustbin of history as the number of white voters shrinks over the decades. The GOP is well aware that their ideology and beliefs are not in tune with most people who are not white and they fear a America which is not favorable disposed to the Republican.... white ..... belief system.

So what they are doing is the same thing as voter suppression laws, defending the Electoral College, embracing gerrymandering - all tricks employed in trying to find a way that they can win elections while still being a firm minority of actual Americans.

That is the ugly little secret about this reality that they do not want to talk about.

If immigrants were enthusiastic supporters of conservatism and Republicanism - the GOP would move heaven and earth to create a path to citizenship for them and get ballots in their hands as soon as humanly possible.
Click to expand...

You are mostly right but not because of either race or ethnicity. Simply lowering the average age of voters gives the demorats an edge so the more immigration the better and the younger those immigrants are the better.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
You are mostly right but not because of either race or ethnicity. Simply lowering the average age of voters gives the demorats an edge so the more immigration the better and the younger those immigrants are the better.
Click to expand...

Yes - younger voters under 30 tend to heavily favor Dems - I have seen polls where the margin was nearly fifty points - which is staggering.

But race is also a factor as non-whites also lean to the Dems and demographics are destiny in this matter.

The GOP can embrace gerrymandering and win some elections that way. The GOP can try to institute voter suppression laws and win some elections that way. They can continue to defend the basic unfairness of the Electoral College and win the White House that way. But all these tricks take a toll on the nation and only add up to a big pile of dirt that besmirches our democratic republic and erodes at citizen confidence in our basic institutions and our nations government.

I want an America where everyone here is a participating citizen who loves this nation and is pushing for its advancement and in doing that strengthens our nation and all of us in turn.

I would hope we all can support that goal.
 
calamity said:
Mexico is funding the wall. Remember?
Click to expand...

That was a weird promise, I agree.
What if...less Mexicans are employed in the US and send money down south? How soon would it add up? I don't want to argue, but rather look at all possibilities.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The majority did not favor the latest "shutdown" - it happened anyway. A DACA "deal" (as described in the OP with these serious restrictions) would only be acceptable to a handful of "red state" demorat Senators and any restrictions omitted would likely remove the support of many "red state" republicant Senators still leaving the measure DOA (receiving less than 60 votes) in the Senate.
Click to expand...

Some of the red state Dems are up for election. I wonder what they hear from their constituents. Thoughts on that?
 
haymarket said:
Yes - younger voters under 30 tend to heavily favor Dems - I have seen polls where the margin was nearly fifty points - which is staggering.

But race is also a factor as non-whites also lean to the Dems and demographics are destiny in this matter.

The GOP can embrace gerrymandering and win some elections that way. The GOP can try to institute voter suppression laws and win some elections that way. They can continue to defend the basic unfairness of the Electoral College and win the White House that way. But all these tricks take a toll on the nation and only add up to a big pile of dirt that besmirches our democratic republic and erodes at citizen confidence in our basic institutions and our nations government.

I want an America where everyone here is a participating citizen who loves this nation and is pushing for its advancement and in doing that strengthens our nation and all of us in turn.

I would hope we all can support that goal.
Click to expand...

Nice story but if the real issue is income inequality then the last thing that helps are policies which keep wages down for most by keeping the labor supply constantly above the labor demand. Also, the idea that economic progress (growth?) requires an ever increasing number of humans (working or not) runs counter to most efforts to protect the environment.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
To you or I perhaps but we don't matter in the big picture.

Not to Trump - he just needs to convince himself that he "won". If Trump gets some wall funding, perhaps a few more border patrol agents and DACA (in any form) he will claim to have "gotten enough for now".

The professional liars that Schumer controls (and most of the MSM worships) will not give Trump any more than necessary. The real prize is converting 3 to 6 million "illegal" immigrants to some form of officially protected status - that translates directly to many millions more demorat votes for life.
Click to expand...

Not sure if "some form of officially protected status" equates to "more demorat votes", does protected status immediately mean voting rights?
I thought only US citizens have the right to vote.

Going forward, eventually, yes, voting rights, after naturalization to my thinking, which might translate into more Democratic votes possibly eventually.
 
haymarket said:
And is that not the motivation for Republicans to try and prevent a path to citizenship? They fear the inevitability of demographics which would reduce the Republican party to the dustbin of history as the number of white voters shrinks over the decades. The GOP is well aware that their ideology and beliefs are not in tune with most people who are not white and they fear a America which is not favorable disposed to the Republican.... white ..... belief system.
Click to expand...
So, in other words, the democrat goal is to import tens of millions of foreigners in order to outnumber white Americans so that they can have one party rule until the end of time. That's quite an admission.

So what they are doing is the same thing as voter suppression laws, defending the Electoral College, embracing gerrymandering - all tricks employed in trying to find a way that they can win elections while still being a firm minority of actual Americans.

That is the ugly little secret about this reality that they do not want to talk about.

If immigrants were enthusiastic supporters of conservatism and Republicanism - the GOP would move heaven and earth to create a path to citizenship for them and get ballots in their hands as soon as humanly possible.
Click to expand...
But since they aren't, democrats are doing that. So there we have it. Democrats want open borders for the sole purpose of gaining political power. Now that your 'ugly little secret' is out, there can never be a compromise with the left on immigration.
 
eohrnberger said:
Not sure if "some form of officially protected status" equates to "more demorat votes", does protected status immediately mean voting rights?
I thought only US citizens have the right to vote.

Going forward, eventually, yes, voting rights, after naturalization to my thinking, which might translate into more Democratic votes possibly eventually.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) ignores two major factors:

1) Many forms of ID are possessed by non-citizens even without legal status because, as you know, these folks work to support themselves while the law states that they can't work or be harbored legally. Have you ever been asked to prove citizenship (not just your age) to get a state issued, photo ID? Many (most?) of these "dreamy" folks are not undocumented they are differently documented or, in some cases, multiply documented.

2) The census, which counts all residents (not just citizens or folks of voting age), assigns House seat and EC vote totals based on total population alone. States with loads of non-citizens (legal or not), like CA and TX, get extra House members and EC votes based on quantity (not quality) of those residents. So, even if no non-citizens actually vote (which is doubtful) they are still represented by those that do vote.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) ignores two major factors:

1) Many forms of ID are possessed by non-citizens even without legal status because, as you know, these folks work to support themselves while the law states that they can't work or be harbored legally. Have you ever been asked to prove citizenship (not just your age) to get a state issued, photo ID? Many (most?) of these "dreamy" folks are not undocumented they are differently documented or, in some cases, multiply documented.

2) The census, which counts all residents (not just citizens or folks of voting age), assigns House seat and EC vote totals based on total population alone. States with loads of non-citizens (legal or not), like CA and TX, get extra House members and EC votes based on quantity (not quality) of those residents. So, even if no non-citizens actually vote (which is doubtful) they are still represented by those that do vote.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Good points those. Even more reason to make voting contingent on proof of citizenship, me think.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
To you or I perhaps but we don't matter in the big picture.

Not to Trump - he just needs to convince himself that he "won". If Trump gets some wall funding, perhaps a few more border patrol agents and DACA (in any form) he will claim to have "gotten enough for now".

The professional liars that Schumer controls (and most of the MSM worships) will not give Trump any more than necessary. The real prize is converting 3 to 6 million "illegal" immigrants to some form of officially protected status - that translates directly to many millions more demorat votes for life.
Click to expand...

Do you know why they just don't fine it away?

$3000 a head. E-verify EXISTS.

If you don't use it and get caught with an illegal on the payroll its three grand a head. Double that if it happened before.

Offer a twenty percent reward of the fines imposed.

Problem ****ing solved.

And it would cost zero billions.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Nice story but if the real issue is income inequality then the last thing that helps are policies which keep wages down for most by keeping the labor supply constantly above the labor demand. Also, the idea that economic progress (growth?) requires an ever increasing number of humans (working or not) runs counter to most efforts to protect the environment.
Click to expand...

I agree with you about labor demand. I have long favored a very simple measure which I think would strongly discourage people from coming here to obtain illegal work taking jobs from Americans. Simply place a fine of $10,000.00 per day per worker for any employer who hires an illegal person.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It gives them what they want. DACA. So why wouldn't they? They also claim to want many of the things that are in this bill. So again, why wouldn't they?
Click to expand...

The second paragraph of your linked story gives us several reasons

The bill includes the measures the White House has insisted be in any immigration bill, plus some more: It abolishes the extended-family chain migration categories and the visa lottery, authorizes wall funding and extra border agents, cracks down on sanctuary cities and asylum abuse, and mandates E-Verify.
Click to expand...
 
Fletch said:
So, in other words, the democrat goal is to import tens of millions of foreigners in order to outnumber white Americans so that they can have one party rule until the end of time. That's quite an admission.
Click to expand...

Never said that.

Democrats want open borders for the sole purpose of gaining political power. Now that your 'ugly little secret' is out, there can never be a compromise with the left on immigration
Click to expand...

As a life long Democrat I have always been 100% against the idea of open borders. And I know very few Dems who support such a concept.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom