• 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 didn't teh DACA deal work?

Lutherf

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
49,645
Reaction score
55,258
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
According to this article in Rolling Stone - https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/daca-vs-the-wall-whats-the-deal-w515512 - the Senate deal would have allowed amnesty for dreamers but prohibited their parents from becoming citizens, ended the "diversity lottery" but reallocated the visas to other countries and provided funding for border security.

Despite the president's show of bad faith, Democrats returned to the bargaining table and made deep concessions in the bipartisan deal presented to Trump last week. Dreamers would have been given a path to citizenship, but their parents would have been blocked from obtaining citizenship — a limit on "chain migration," as the White House had been demanding. The proposed deal allocated nearly $3 billion to border security. It also reportedly ended a "diversity lottery" for 50,000 green cards — intended to bring immigrants from under-represented countries into the American melting pot — that is much hated by Trump. In exchange, the deal then reallocated some of those diversity work visas to temporary immigrants here from El Salvador, Haiti, and countries in Africa. It was this provision that sparked Trump's "****hole" tirade, bringing negotiations to a screeching halt. (With no legislative fix in sight, the Trump Justice Department nonetheless made a rare appeal directly to the Supreme Court to overturn an injunction that could keep DACA afloat past its scheduled expiration in March.)
Click to expand...

That sounds like a good bit if give and take to me. Protect the kids but don't reward the parents who committed the crime. Makes sense to me. Improving border security should be a no brainer and the transfer of the "lottery" visas to a specific program seems prudent.

Maybe I'm missing something. Why was this such a bad deal that most of the Democrats, a few "NeverTrump" GOP fatalists and Rand Paul who is an ideological purist couldn't support it?
 
Lutherf said:
According to this article in Rolling Stone - https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/daca-vs-the-wall-whats-the-deal-w515512 - the Senate deal would have allowed amnesty for dreamers but prohibited their parents from becoming citizens, ended the "diversity lottery" but reallocated the visas to other countries and provided funding for border security.



That sounds like a good bit if give and take to me. Protect the kids but don't reward the parents who committed the crime. Makes sense to me. Improving border security should be a no brainer and the transfer of the "lottery" visas to a specific program seems prudent.

Maybe I'm missing something. Why was this such a bad deal that most of the Democrats, a few "NeverTrump" GOP fatalists and Rand Paul who is an ideological purist couldn't support it?
Click to expand...

They turned down a six year funding for CHIPS in order to stall the DACA program and hold it hostage for budget funding, yet DACA does not expire until March 23rd.

The democrats are counting on the media to blame the Republicans as they always do when the democrats are at fault. They agreed to everything in the bill, them moved the goal posts. Nancy Pelosi left out the side door of the Senate wing when she and Schumer sat down, and then agreed to walk out of the deal. Why?

They feel that this will help them win house seats in the California elections this fall, and there is a governor's race going on, also.

They don't give two squirts of owl **** about DACA. They want total amnesty for everyone who sets foot here regardless of who they are.

BTW, Rolling Stone is wrong. The parents are covered by other issues that have not been resolved. They probably will have to apply for green cards just like their kids, but extend illegal family without DACA coverage is out of luck.
 
I believe it's because democrats need a victory of some kind - any kind. Historically, blame for government shut-downs falls on the GOP, so I think Schumer decided to go to that well one more time. Immigration issues are best left unsolved if you intend to campaign on them in a few months.
 
chuckiechan said:
They turned down a six year funding for CHIPS in order to stall the DACA program and hold it hostage for budget funding, yet DACA does not expire until March 23rd.

The democrats are counting on the media to blame the Republicans as they always do when the democrats are at fault. They agreed to everything in the bill, them moved the goal posts. Nancy Pelosi left out the side door of the Senate wing when she and Schumer sat down, and then agreed to walk out of the deal. Why?

They feel that this will help them win house seats in the California elections this fall, and there is a governor's race going on, also.

They don't give two squirts of owl **** about DACA. They want total amnesty for everyone who sets foot here regardless of who they are.

BTW, Rolling Stone is wrong. The parents are covered by other issues that have not been resolved. They probably will have to apply for green cards just like their kids, but extend illegal family without DACA coverage is out of luck.
Click to expand...

That's something else I don't get. Why do Democrats feel such a need to cater to the moonbats in places like LA, San Francisco and NYC? It's not like they're going to lose those counties....ever.

Hmmm...maybe it has something to do with the $$$ they get out of those locations. Nah. Couldn't be. Democrats care about people, not money.
 
Lutherf said:
That's something else I don't get. Why do Democrats feel such a need to cater to the moonbats in places like LA, San Francisco and NYC? It's not like they're going to lose those counties....ever.

Hmmm...maybe it has something to do with the $$$ they get out of those locations. Nah. Couldn't be. Democrats care about people, not money.
Click to expand...

Because California still has some republican house members they would like to banish and it will help them with their amnesty push.
 
Lutherf said:
According to this article in Rolling Stone - https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/daca-vs-the-wall-whats-the-deal-w515512 - the Senate deal would have allowed amnesty for dreamers but prohibited their parents from becoming citizens, ended the "diversity lottery" but reallocated the visas to other countries and provided funding for border security.



That sounds like a good bit if give and take to me. Protect the kids but don't reward the parents who committed the crime. Makes sense to me. Improving border security should be a no brainer and the transfer of the "lottery" visas to a specific program seems prudent.

Maybe I'm missing something. Why was this such a bad deal that most of the Democrats, a few "NeverTrump" GOP fatalists and Rand Paul who is an ideological purist couldn't support it?
Click to expand...

It is not a good deal to simply re-label (25% of) the current illegal immigrants as suddenly legal. Even if the Great Wall of Trump was started tomorrow (which is totally unrealistic) and reduced illegal border crossing by 50% (highly optimistic) it would simply slow the inflow of illegal immigrants by (maybe) 20%.

As long as chain immigration and massive visa overstays are not stopped then this is simply optics. Note that universal eVerify or any other serious interior enforcement enhancement is not being included. The real problem with immigration (legal or not) is constantly adding more low wage workers thus keeping labor supply at or above labor demand (assuring continued wage stagnation) - that pleases the donor class (aka the "job creators") and therefore congress critters.
 
Lutherf said:
According to this article in Rolling Stone - https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/daca-vs-the-wall-whats-the-deal-w515512 - the Senate deal would have allowed amnesty for dreamers but prohibited their parents from becoming citizens, ended the "diversity lottery" but reallocated the visas to other countries and provided funding for border security.



That sounds like a good bit if give and take to me. Protect the kids but don't reward the parents who committed the crime. Makes sense to me. Improving border security should be a no brainer and the transfer of the "lottery" visas to a specific program seems prudent.

Maybe I'm missing something. Why was this such a bad deal that most of the Democrats, a few "NeverTrump" GOP fatalists and Rand Paul who is an ideological purist couldn't support it?
Click to expand...

What show of bad faith are you citing? Trump asked a particular group to work to construct a particular thing.

Two members of that group made a back room deal that shut out the rest of the group and did not include the components requested.

Out of Curiosity, are you SERIOUSLY presenting the Rolling Stone as an impartial arbiter of truth?

The Dreamers are here due to a circumstance that needs to be corrected.

Would the ideas considered by Lindsay and Little Dick have corrected the circumstances that allowed the Dreamers to have snuck in originally?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not a good deal to simply re-label (25% of) the current illegal immigrants as suddenly legal. Even if the Great Wall of Trump was started tomorrow (which is totally unrealistic) and reduced illegal border crossing by 50% (highly optimistic) it would simply slow the inflow of illegal immigrants by (maybe) 20%.

As long as chain immigration and massive visa overstays are not stopped then this is simply optics. Note that universal eVerify or any other serious interior enforcement enhancement is not being included. The real problem with immigration (legal or not) is constantly adding more low wage workers thus keeping labor supply at or above labor demand (assuring continued wage stagnation) - that pleases the donor class (aka the "job creators") and therefore congress critters.
Click to expand...

Where do you get your figures from? Thin air? :confused:

A wall by itself would not work. A proper wall with passive and active sensors, silent alerts, and INS ready reaction force agents stationed at key points would work.

The main problem would be corruption, as poorly paid "guards" will often stoop to bribery.

IMO the wall would be tested frequently, but if the failure rate is significant enough then the coyotes would do exactly what most Progressives claim...figure out a water route to either side.

However, a combination of Coast Guard water units and INS land units would have significantly greater success catching the hordes channelized by the wall to either end.

That's how I see it playing out anyway.
 
Lutherf said:
According to this article in Rolling Stone - https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/daca-vs-the-wall-whats-the-deal-w515512 - the Senate deal would have allowed amnesty for dreamers but prohibited their parents from becoming citizens, ended the "diversity lottery" but reallocated the visas to other countries and provided funding for border security.



That sounds like a good bit if give and take to me. Protect the kids but don't reward the parents who committed the crime. Makes sense to me. Improving border security should be a no brainer and the transfer of the "lottery" visas to a specific program seems prudent.

Maybe I'm missing something. Why was this such a bad deal that most of the Democrats, a few "NeverTrump" GOP fatalists and Rand Paul who is an ideological purist couldn't support it?
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like a reasonable compromise. Why not support it? Well, it appears that Congress is more inclined to support the party than do what is right for the country. It's been that way for quite some time now, and the election of Trump to the WhiteHouse hasn't helped. Congress is dysfunctional.
 
Lutherf said:
According to this article in Rolling Stone - https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/daca-vs-the-wall-whats-the-deal-w515512 - the Senate deal would have allowed amnesty for dreamers but prohibited their parents from becoming citizens, ended the "diversity lottery" but reallocated the visas to other countries and provided funding for border security.



That sounds like a good bit if give and take to me. Protect the kids but don't reward the parents who committed the crime. Makes sense to me. Improving border security should be a no brainer and the transfer of the "lottery" visas to a specific program seems prudent.

Maybe I'm missing something. Why was this such a bad deal that most of the Democrats, a few "NeverTrump" GOP fatalists and Rand Paul who is an ideological purist couldn't support it?
Click to expand...

What you are missing is this:

1. Denying the parents of dreamers from obtaining citizenship isn't a compromise. If those parents are illegal aliens, they are already denied citizenship. If they are still in another country, they are not denied being able to legally come to the US...which is chain migration. So this part ISN'T a limit on chain migration at all.

2. Shifting lottery green cards from one place to another does nothing to end the lottery.

So...Trump demands the END of chain migration and the END of the lottery. Lindsey and Schumer brought Trump a "compromise" that does neither. Yeah...I don't think I'd have called those countries ****holes...I would have called Lindsey and Schumer ****heads and tossed them out of my office for daring to come to me with this idiotic deal.
 
Mycroft said:
What you are missing is this:

1. Denying the parents of dreamers from obtaining citizenship isn't a compromise. If those parents are illegal aliens, they are already denied citizenship. If they are still in another country, they are not denied being able to legally come to the US...which is chain migration. So this part ISN'T a limit on chain migration at all.

2. Shifting lottery green cards from one place to another does nothing to end the lottery.

So...Trump demands the END of chain migration and the END of the lottery. Lindsey and Schumer brought Trump a "compromise" that does neither. Yeah...I don't think I'd have called those countries ****holes...I would have called Lindsey and Schumer ****heads and tossed them out of my office for daring to come to me with this idiotic deal.
Click to expand...

The Myth of Chain Migration

A common criticism of the U.S. immigration system is it tilts toward family admissions. This criticism rests, in part, on the mistaken notion that any close relations sponsored by U.S. citizens come to America quickly as permanent residents. However the wait times for sponsoring a close family member are long and, in some cases, extremely long. (See this recent report from the National Foundation for American Policy.)
Click to expand...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
It is not a good deal to simply re-label (25% of) the current illegal immigrants as suddenly legal. Even if the Great Wall of Trump was started tomorrow (which is totally unrealistic) and reduced illegal border crossing by 50% (highly optimistic) it would simply slow the inflow of illegal immigrants by (maybe) 20%.

As long as chain immigration and massive visa overstays are not stopped then this is simply optics. Note that universal eVerify or any other serious interior enforcement enhancement is not being included. The real problem with immigration (legal or not) is constantly adding more low wage workers thus keeping labor supply at or above labor demand (assuring continued wage stagnation) - that pleases the donor class (aka the "job creators") and therefore congress critters.
Click to expand...

I understand that but, from a practical standpoint, we're not going to get a deal that amounts to straight repeal of DACA. There are too many Republicans who support open borders, let alone Democrats. There really needs to be a total overhaul of the visa process for unskilled labor if we're going to solve the problem. Unfortunately for us peon citizens there is so much political mojo at stake in keeping illegal immigration a divisional issue that the establishment politicians aren't going to even try to fix it.
 
Dittohead not! said:
The Myth of Chain Migration
Click to expand...

Put that guys arguement in more context, From Juan sponsoring his brother Carlos and then Carlos getting his Wife Vanessa and then Vanessa getting her brother Ruberto over and him completing the proccess to become a citizen takes 41 years. I dont know if I trust his math.
Also he cites a nfap article that claims companies are hindered cuz they are not getting enough immigration from certain countries so they can hire them for their tech jobs. And if they dont get enough immigrants then they have to ship those jobs overseas...... Think about that for a second. 1- im not hiring americans im only hiring foreignors and then 2- if you dont bring in more foreingors i'll employee more foreignors in other countries. Where does 1 or 2 help the american citizen? In each 1 or 2 the company is not hiring an american citizen.
 
code1211 said:
What show of bad faith are you citing? Trump asked a particular group to work to construct a particular thing.

Two members of that group made a back room deal that shut out the rest of the group and did not include the components requested.

Out of Curiosity, are you SERIOUSLY presenting the Rolling Stone as an impartial arbiter of truth?

The Dreamers are here due to a circumstance that needs to be corrected.

Would the ideas considered by Lindsay and Little Dick have corrected the circumstances that allowed the Dreamers to have snuck in originally?
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of Graham, Schumer or Rolling Stone. I'm generally opposed to amnesty in any form but I'm also attempting to give consideration to the reality of the situation. I'm not going to get what I want so I want to make sure I at least get as much as I can.

WRT the choice of Rolling Stone, the article had the information I was looking for and by using this particular source I can cut a bunch of the "it's all conspiracy" crap we get from left wing users out of the equation.
 
Lutherf said:
I understand that but, from a practical standpoint, we're not going to get a deal that amounts to straight repeal of DACA. There are too many Republicans who support open borders, let alone Democrats. There really needs to be a total overhaul of the visa process for unskilled labor if we're going to solve the problem. Unfortunately for us peon citizens there is so much political mojo at stake in keeping illegal immigration a divisional issue that the establishment politicians aren't going to even try to fix it.
Click to expand...

Yep, wage stagnation and growing income inequality is the new normal. The fierce competition between the party for a bigger federal government and the party for a huge federal government will continue to assure us that things will get better soon if we continue to support either of them.
 
The reason the preposed deal didnt work is cuz Trump has an understanding of what the people want. Not want the democrats and some republicans want to give us and the lying thats involved. The american people want a fix the immigration problem they are seeing. They also want border security.
But here is the past list of immigration fixes and its easy to see why most americans dont want this same program to done over again.
https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html
And border security promises
1 main reason U.S. border wall hasn’t been built
 
jdog21 said:
Put that guys arguement in more context, From Juan sponsoring his brother Carlos and then Carlos getting his Wife Vanessa and then Vanessa getting her brother Ruberto over and him completing the proccess to become a citizen takes 41 years. I dont know if I trust his math.
Also he cites a nfap article that claims companies are hindered cuz they are not getting enough immigration from certain countries so they can hire them for their tech jobs. And if they dont get enough immigrants then they have to ship those jobs overseas...... Think about that for a second. 1- im not hiring americans im only hiring foreignors and then 2- if you dont bring in more foreingors i'll employee more foreignors in other countries. Where does 1 or 2 help the american citizen? In each 1 or 2 the company is not hiring an american citizen.
Click to expand...

The big question is why they hire foreigners. These are not jobs that Americans won't do, so there must be another reason, right?
 
Dittohead not! said:
The big question is why they hire foreigners. These are not jobs that Americans won't do, so there must be another reason, right?
Click to expand...

Or they are not willing to pay a wage high enough for the style of work.
If all the companies are only willing to pay is $6 an hour for an electrician do you think there would be many electricians around?
If you paid $250 an hour would you see a lot more electricians?
The answer here is YES but the jobs like AG dont want to pay a higher wage cuz that would mean they would have to raise their prices at the market and risk people stop buying their product all together.
 
Lutherf said:
I'm no fan of Graham, Schumer or Rolling Stone. I'm generally opposed to amnesty in any form but I'm also attempting to give consideration to the reality of the situation. I'm not going to get what I want so I want to make sure I at least get as much as I can.

WRT the choice of Rolling Stone, the article had the information I was looking for and by using this particular source I can cut a bunch of the "it's all conspiracy" crap we get from left wing users out of the equation.
Click to expand...

I feel that the Dreamers are here and sending them to s-hole countries that are unfamiliar to them would be cruel and unfair whether these are their countries of origin or not. Apparently coming to the USA is considered by many to be a wise move.

Why would they want to come to this s-hole country that is unfamiliar to them and peopled by folks that don't speak their language? But that's a different topic area...

I feel that correcting a problem with defineable causes and effects needs to address the causes as well as the effects.

Most presentations from the media are portraying Trump as some sort of Monster in this because he's asking that we address the causes and the effects of the issue. Others, notably Lindsay and Little Dick, want to address ONLY the effects.

To me, the approach taken by Lindsay and Little Dick is insanity.

It was also exclusionary in the topics it addressed and the legislators it included and those it excluded. It omitted the components of the deal that Trump sought and asked for.

Like most things lately, this has come down to Never-Trumpers doing the same old things things the same old way to meet with the same old failures working against Trump who is approaching things to reach solutions and conclusions.
 
code1211 said:
I feel that the Dreamers are here and sending them to s-hole countries that are unfamiliar to them would be cruel and unfair whether these are their countries of origin or not. Apparently coming to the USA is considered by many to be a wise move.

Why would they want to come to this s-hole country that is unfamiliar to them and peopled by folks that don't speak their language? But that's a different topic area...

I feel that correcting a problem with defineable causes and effects needs to address the causes as well as the effects.

Most presentations from the media are portraying Trump as some sort of Monster in this because he's asking that we address the causes and the effects of the issue. Others, notably Lindsay and Little Dick, want to address ONLY the effects.

To me, the approach taken by Lindsay and Little Dick is insanity.

It was also exclusionary in the topics it addressed and the legislators it included and those it excluded. It omitted the components of the deal that Trump sought and asked for.

Like most things lately, this has come down to Never-Trumpers doing the same old things things the same old way to meet with the same old failures working against Trump who is approaching things to reach solutions and conclusions.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is close but no cigar. One of the (major?) causes of illegal immigration is our propensity to grant amnesty.

The concept of "dreamer" is part of the problem thus it cannot be considered to be part of the solution. What, other than encourage illegal immigrants to bring minor children along, does it accomplish?

Is there any other crime (e.g. driving without a license and/or liability insurance) where granting amnesty to those that have violated the law for a long enough period of time (number of miles?) should be reason to waive enforcement of that law? Perhaps only those that can prove to have had their driver's licenses suspended for at least 5 years can just start driving legally again.

How, exactly, does one determine that only one of two illegal immigrants that arrived in the US at age 8 must be allowed to stay while the other must be deported? That is Obama's DACA EO in a nut shell - the 8 year old that arrived on 6/14/07 is a "dreamer" but the 8 year old that arrived on 6/16/07 is an illegal immigrant subject to deportation.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is close but no cigar. One of the (major?) causes of illegal immigration is our propensity to grant amnesty.

The concept of "dreamer" is part of the problem thus it cannot be considered to be part of the solution. What, other than encourage illegal immigrants to bring minor children along, does it accomplish?

Is there any other crime (e.g. driving without a license and/or liability insurance) where granting amnesty to those that have violated the law for a long enough period of time (number of miles?) should be reason to waive enforcement of that law? Perhaps only those that can prove to have had their driver's licenses suspended for at least 5 years can just start driving legally again.

How, exactly, does one determine that only one of two illegal immigrants that arrived in the US at age 8 must be allowed to stay while the other must be deported? That is Obama's DACA EO in a nut shell - the 8 year old that arrived on 6/14/07 is a "dreamer" but the 8 year old that arrived on 6/16/07 is an illegal immigrant subject to deportation.
Click to expand...

Granting the presence is one thing. Granting full rights os citizenship is another.

The issue is that the folks not be returned to the s-hole countries. I don't see an issue with that.

Coupling this with enhanced border security will reduce the flow of illegal entries to the country and also the drug type stuff that crosses the border.

I don't understand why the Dems are so opposed to any kind of border security.
 
code1211 said:
Granting the presence is one thing. Granting full rights os citizenship is another.

The issue is that the folks not be returned to the s-hole countries. I don't see an issue with that.

Coupling this with enhanced border security will reduce the flow of illegal entries to the country and also the drug type stuff that crosses the border.

I don't understand why the Dems are so opposed to any kind of border security.
Click to expand...

That (bolded above) is exactly what Reagan thought and foolishly let amnesty precede increased border security and increased interior immigration law enforcement which, of course, was promised to him then. That is also why the demorats are demanding a "clean" DACA (DAPA?) amnesty bill and trying their best to assure that nobody has time to think about or debate the matter.

Granting legal "presence" (a visa) is simply ignoring immigration law enforcement which encourages more illegal immigration with minor dependents in tow.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (bolded above) is exactly what Reagan thought and foolishly let amnesty precede increased border security and increased interior immigration law enforcement which, of course, was promised to him then. That is also why the demorats are demanding a "clean" DACA (DAPA?) amnesty bill and trying their best to assure that nobody has time to think about or debate the matter.

Granting legal "presence" (a visa) is simply ignoring immigration law enforcement which encourages more illegal immigration with minor dependents in tow.
Click to expand...

I think Trump learned from the swindle that was perpetrated on Reagan.

The Border Security, wall, needs to be in place for the Amnesty to be given.

The Dems are trying to work the same swindle again and this time they have a negotiating partner that ain't buying their act.

You have to give the Dems credit, though. They will just keep trying the same old same old. It's always worked in the past. They can't understand why it's not working right now.

Not working again and again and again.

Release the memo!
 
jdog21 said:
Or they are not willing to pay a wage high enough for the style of work.
If all the companies are only willing to pay is $6 an hour for an electrician do you think there would be many electricians around?
If you paid $250 an hour would you see a lot more electricians?
The answer here is YES but the jobs like AG dont want to pay a higher wage cuz that would mean they would have to raise their prices at the market and risk people stop buying their product all together.
Click to expand...

If that's so, then the companies that pay a high wage soon go out of business, and the ones that pay a low wage take over. Low wage jobs become the norm, and the middle class gets screwed again. What a plan!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom