• 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!

Why the flip flop on immigration

PoppyCock

PoppyCock

Banned
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
1,252
Reaction score
486
Location
USSA
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Historically, Democrats were anti-illegal immigration. So what changed, the problem has only increased. Why the 180? Because Trump? That's all i can fathom. Any other ideas?
Clinton 1995 immigration SOTU | User Clip | C-SPAN.org

1995 State of the Union Address
By Bill Clinton
All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.
In the budget I will present to you we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.
We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.
 
PoppyCock said:
Historically, Democrats were anti-illegal immigration. So what changed, the problem has only increased. Why the 180? Because Trump? That's all i can fathom. Any other ideas?
Clinton 1995 immigration SOTU | User Clip | C-SPAN.org

1995 State of the Union Address
By Bill Clinton
All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use impose burdens on our taxpayers. That's why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders more by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.
In the budget I will present to you we will try to do more to speed the deportation of illegal aliens who are arrested for crimes, to better identify illegal aliens in the workplace as recommended by the commission headed by former Congresswoman Barbara Jordan.
We are a nation of immigrants. But we are also a nation of laws. It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.
Click to expand...

They "evolved".
 
PoppyCock said:
Historically, Democrats were anti-illegal immigration. So what changed, the problem has only increased. Why the 180? Because Trump? That's all i can fathom. Any other ideas?
Clinton 1995 immigration SOTU | User Clip | C-SPAN.org

1995 State of the Union Address
By Bill Clinton
All Americans, not only in the states most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. ...It is wrong and ultimately self-defeating for a nation of immigrants to permit the kind of abuse of our immigration laws we have seen in recent years, and we must do more to stop it.
Click to expand...

Red:
AFAIK, Democrats continue to decry illegal immigration. Have you come across any Democrats who matter having condoned the act of foreigners illegally immigrating to the US? If so, please do share the assertions to that effect.


Blue:
What problem? That of illegal immigration? If illegal immigration be the problem to which you refer, in the scheme of things, it hasn't increased. Quite the contrary. (click the link and expand the chart found on the linked webpage)
 
Xelor said:
Red:
AFAIK, Democrats continue to decry illegal immigration. Have you come across any Democrats who matter having condoned the act of foreigners illegally immigrating to the US? If so, please do share the assertions to that effect.


Blue:
What problem? That of illegal immigration? If illegal immigration be the problem to which you refer, in the scheme of things, it hasn't increased. Quite the contrary. (click the link and expand the chart found on the linked webpage)
Click to expand...

What, other than to help support illegal immigration, would you call encouraging sanctuary cities/states?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What, other than to help support illegal immigration, would you call encouraging sanctuary cities/states?
Click to expand...
Ensuring people here without unlawful status do not fear coming forward to police to report crimes, cooperate with police, be available as witnesses, etc. Basically, to keep our communities safe from actual criminals.
 
Lakryte said:
Ensuring people here without unlawful status do not fear coming forward to police to report crimes, cooperate with police, be available as witnesses, etc. Basically, to keep our communities safe from actual criminals.
Click to expand...

It is the actual criminal held in custody which is reported to ICE/ERO not the witness to (or reporter of) the crime.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is the actual criminal held in custody which is reported to ICE/ERO not the witness to (or reporter of) the crime.
Click to expand...
You do realize that people without lawful status are generally wary of interactions with the police because of a fear of deportation, do you not? Actual criminals can get away with crimes when potential witnesses are too afraid to report crimes, cooperate with police, or serve as witnesses. If the community has no trust in the police, the police cannot do their job, and everybody suffers.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
AFAIK, Democrats continue to decry illegal immigration. Have you come across any Democrats who matter having condoned the act of foreigners illegally immigrating to the US? If so, please do share the assertions to that effect.


Blue:
What problem? That of illegal immigration? If illegal immigration be the problem to which you refer, in the scheme of things, it hasn't increased. Quite the contrary. (click the link and expand the chart found on the linked webpage)
Click to expand...

Red: Illegal Immigration: Yes, Democrats Are Now The Party Of Open Borders

So, let's add all this up.
Democrats want to neuter the one agency responsible for enforcing border security. They want to make it easy for illegals who cross to stay in the country. And they want to give them the right to vote.
Leading Democrats also adamantly oppose building a secure border wall. They support "sanctuary cities" that actively protect illegals from deportation. And they want to grant every illegal in the country amnesty.
And we're supposed to believe that Democrats aren't for open borders simply because they say so?
============

Blue: US Border Crisis: 100,000 Illegal Immigrants in 60 Days
Page not found...

US Border Crisis: 100,000 Illegal Immigrants in 60 Days. By Charlotte Cuthbertson December 12, 2018. share. WASHINGTON—A caravan’s worth of illegal immigrants cross the border every day—as has been the case for years. But the numbers are currently on a sharp upward trend.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
AFAIK, Democrats continue to decry illegal immigration. Have you come across any Democrats who matter having condoned the act of foreigners illegally immigrating to the US? If so, please do share the assertions to that effect.




Blue:
What problem? That of illegal immigration? If illegal immigration be the problem to which you refer, in the scheme of things, it hasn't increased. Quite the contrary. (click the link and expand the chart found on the linked webpage)

ttwtt78640 said:
What, other than to help support illegal immigration, would you call encouraging sanctuary cities/states?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Pink sequence:
I wouldn't call it anything having to do with supporting illegal immigration. I'd call it something having to do with people and their presence in the US, but not with illegally immigrating into the US.

Sanctuary city designations do not stop foreigners from illegally immigrating into the US, nor do those designations abet foreigners illegally immigrating into the US. It doesn't because such behavior occurs at borders and internal ports of entry.

The people to whom sanctuary city designations pertain have already entered the country. The thing needed to deal with them is deportation, not immigration. Perhaps you've forgotten that Obama was nicknamed the "Deporter in Chief" because his Administration more vigorously than any of his predecessors removed aliens who'd illegally remained in the US.

PB-Jan2017-T1-large.png


Obama deported more aliens too than has Trump, at least as of the end of calendar 2018.
Thus, if sanctuary city designations and their impacts are what concern one -- recognizing that such locales existed under "O" just as they do under Trump -- then one's focus needs to be not on abating illegal immigration but on increasing removals of folks who's status is that of having already successfully illegally immigrated.

So I repeat my earlier solicitation:
  • Have you come across any Democrats who matter having condoned the act of foreigners illegally immigrating to the US? If so, please do share the assertions to that effect.
One can say "whatever" about sanctuary cities, but what one cannot credibly assert is that Democrats are indifferent about removing folks who've situated themselves in them and elsewhere in the US interior.
 
Last edited:
PoppyCock said:
Red: Illegal Immigration: Yes, Democrats Are Now The Party Of Open Borders

So, let's add all this up.
Democrats want to neuter the one agency responsible for enforcing border security. They want to make it easy for illegals who cross to stay in the country. And they want to give them the right to vote.
Leading Democrats also adamantly oppose building a secure border wall. They support "sanctuary cities" that actively protect illegals from deportation. And they want to grant every illegal in the country amnesty.
And we're supposed to believe that Democrats aren't for open borders simply because they say so?
============

Blue: US Border Crisis: 100,000 Illegal Immigrants in 60 Days
Page not found...

US Border Crisis: 100,000 Illegal Immigrants in 60 Days. By Charlotte Cuthbertson December 12, 2018. share. WASHINGTON—A caravan’s worth of illegal immigrants cross the border every day—as has been the case for years. But the numbers are currently on a sharp upward trend.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You referenced an editorial ("red" section linked content) and a page that's not found ("blue" section "linked" content).
 
Xelor said:
Seriously? You referenced an editorial ("red" section linked content) and a page that's not found ("blue" section "linked" content).
Click to expand...

Are you doubting the 100,000? Most have seen it in the news lately. And the editorial sums it up in a nut shell.
So why the flip flop?
 
Lakryte said:
You do realize that people without lawful status are generally wary of interactions with the police because of a fear of deportation, do you not? Actual criminals can get away with crimes when potential witnesses are too afraid to report crimes, cooperate with police, or serve as witnesses. If the community has no trust in the police, the police cannot do their job, and everybody suffers.
Click to expand...

Those that are in violation of federal immigration laws (as well as those who violate any other laws) should be wary of interactions with the police. I want the police (our public servants?) to be making those in violation of the law wary - if the police are not doing that then why have (and pay) them?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Those that are in violation of federal immigration laws (as well as those who violate any other laws) should be wary of interactions with the police. I want the police (our public servants?) to be making those in violation of the law wary - if the police are not doing that then why have (and pay) them?
Click to expand...
We pay federal immigration authorities to enforce federal immigration laws, including noncriminal violations like overstaying a visa. We want our police to solve actual crimes, such as murder, theft, and rape. Turning police into ICE agents discourages people here unlawfully to report crimes and cooperate in investigations, which in turn makes it harder to solve those crimes. Why make it harder for police to do their jobs?
 
Lakryte said:
We pay federal immigration authorities to enforce federal immigration laws, including noncriminal violations like overstaying a visa. We want our police to solve actual crimes, such as murder, theft, and rape. Turning police into ICE agents discourages people here unlawfully to report crimes and cooperate in investigations, which in turn makes it harder to solve those crimes. Why make it harder for police to do their jobs?
Click to expand...

We have far more (8X as many?) federal airport nannies as we have ICE/ERO agents that are tasked with patrolling the entire US interior. There is absolutely no reason to extend sanctuary status to those in violation of federal immigration law. We are not asking state/local LEOs to do anything special - simply report those already in their custody to the federal government so that if they are illegally in the country (or other jurisdictions) they can be turned over to the feds (or those other jurisdictions).

Do you think that all folks wanted for crimes in other jurisdictions (federal, state or local) should be granted sanctuary status as well because it would make them less wary to report other crimes? If not, then why grant special treatment only to those wanted for federal immigration law violations?
 
Unauthorized migration in the 1990s was far higher than it is today, and increasing dramatically (by 33% between 1992 and 1996). Public sentiment was also significantly different as a result (here's a good overview). Note that despite the harsher sounding rhetoric of Democrats in that era, they still decried discrimination against immigrants and rejected Republican characterizations as immigrants being the cause of crime and all of those familiar tropes. Conservatives now are trying to paint 1990s Democrats as equivalent to Trump today, which simply was not the case. Clinton then went on to win over 70% of the Latino vote.

Also around 1996, Republican-controlled California enacted incredibly restrictive laws targeted towards unauthorized migrants. This led to serious backlash, as the law also had repercussions on Latino legal residents, and Democrats were pushed to view unauthorized migration as a civil rights issue, ultimately resulting in a platform more like what we have today. So in that sense the rhetoric has definitely changed as the party itself has changed.

Political parties change over time--this is especially true in a two-party system like the United States, where new ideas often cannot survive unless they take root in one of the two major parties.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
We have far more (8X as many?) federal airport nannies as we have ICE/ERO agents that are tasked with patrolling the entire US interior. There is absolutely no reason to extend sanctuary status to those in violation of federal immigration law. We are not asking state/local LEOs to do anything special - simply report those already in their custody to the federal government so that if they are illegally in the country (or other jurisdictions) they can be turned over to the feds (or those other jurisdictions).

Do you think that all folks wanted for crimes in other jurisdictions (federal, state or local) should be granted sanctuary status as well because it would make them less wary to report other crimes? If not, then why grant special treatment only to those wanted for federal immigration law violations?
Click to expand...
Solving violent crimes is just more important to me than deporting people who overstayed their visas to try and make a living here. And sanctuary jurisdictions simply do not collect immigration status information so there is nothing to report.
 
Been deported once? Second illegal entry is a felony.

I love the argument, "illegals pay income taxes". Great, that's an admission they are also committing felony ID theft/fraud.
 
Lakryte said:
Solving violent crimes is just more important to me than deporting people who overstayed their visas to try and make a living here. And sanctuary jurisdictions simply do not collect immigration status information so there is nothing to report.
Click to expand...

It seems that the truth finally comes out - you simply don't find enforcing the federal immigration laws important.
 
They see votes, and votes they need. The democratic party needs votes because their ideas are garbage, everybody knows they are garbage, but people who are really on the ragged edge like the idea of free stuff paid for by rich people.

So they demand that the border remain open because they think that illegals will vote for them in states that allow illegals to vote, like california.

Democrats are easy to understand if you have more than a few brain cells available.
 
Bilgewater said:
They see votes, and votes they need. The democratic party needs votes because their ideas are garbage, everybody knows they are garbage, but people who are really on the ragged edge like the idea of free stuff paid for by rich people.

So they demand that the border remain open because they think that illegals will vote for them in states that allow illegals to vote, like california.

Democrats are easy to understand if you have more than a few brain cells available.
Click to expand...

Well, at least your username is accurate.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
AFAIK, Democrats continue to decry illegal immigration. Have you come across any Democrats who matter having condoned the act of foreigners illegally immigrating to the US? If so, please do share the assertions to that effect.


Blue:
What problem? That of illegal immigration? If illegal immigration be the problem to which you refer, in the scheme of things, it hasn't increased. Quite the contrary. (click the link and expand the chart found on the linked webpage)
Click to expand...

Literally every Democrat is against Trump building a wall which would stop illegal immigrants, and have given rise to chants like "no human is illegal". So yeah, I'd say they condone it.
 
Crusader13 said:
Literally every Democrat is against Trump building a wall which would stop illegal immigrants, and have given rise to chants like "no human is illegal". So yeah, I'd say they condone it.
Click to expand...

Given your predicate assumption, one that analysis from Trump's own DoJ, DHS and DEA shows highly unlikely to return the outcomes sought (see the linked content for points E through H, inclusive, here), you would think that.
 
Yea, I know. it must stink for Trumpets that DonDon seems less enthused about Herr Miller's legal immigration plans than he was previously, especially since supporting them cost him enough wall funding to choke a mule ....that is if he ever wanted the stupid WALL in the first place.

There is a real flip-flop for ya'!
 
Crusader13 said:
Literally every Democrat is against Trump building a wall which would stop illegal immigrants, and have given rise to chants like "no human is illegal". So yeah, I'd say they condone it.
Click to expand...

A wall would not stop illegal immigrants as long as they can still find work here.

Republicans are also laws which would stop illegal immigrants as long as they can also hire them. Being partisan about this issue only shows you also really don't care about stopping the actual problems. One fact that proves this is you are blaming Democrats being against Trump while conveniently leaving out Trump's companies hire illegal immigrants and contribute to it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom