• 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!

100% Deal or No Deal?

Deal or No Deal


  • Total voters
    51
Let's say it is up to us

The offer on the table is 100% Amnesty for 100% Border Wall funding.

Deal or no deal?

no, a wall is completely forking dumb and a waste of money. 25Billion could do a hell of a lot of good for people and this country. A stupid wall does not, and it makes our country look bad
 
no, a wall is completely forking dumb and a waste of money. 25Billion could do a hell of a lot of good for people and this country. A stupid wall does not, and it makes our country look bad

Actually, a wall could do a lot of good for people in a lot of different ways.
 
Holding the President accountable for his promises is partisan?

That is up to those who voted for him, not the rabid left who just want to get rid of him no matter what it takes. Did you vote for him?
 
That is up to those who voted for him, not the rabid left who just want to get rid of him no matter what it takes.

What makes Trump supporters more qualified than the rest of America? Would you want Trump reelected if he didn't provide a border wall but stacked on a quarter of a trillion dollars to the deficit?
 
What makes Trump supporters more qualified than the rest of America? Would you want Trump reelected if he didn't provide a border wall but stacked on a quarter of a trillion dollars to the deficit?

Because Trump has to answer to those who voted for him if he wants them to vote for him again. He does not have to answer to those who didn't vote for him in the first place because he isn't going to lose votes he never had in the first place. What you say is totally irrelevant and purely partisan.
 
Looking at this as pragmatically as I can, I think people need to accept that your not getting a wall without some form of amnesty and your not getting amnesty without funding the wall and getting some policy reforms passed. The devil will be in the details of what form of amnesty will be offered and what the policy reform details turn out to be, but make no mistake both sides will have to make concessions.

If either side refuses to deal I'm curious if either side has the stomach to begin deporting daca people. The media is gonna sensationalized it and which party wants to be viewed as the party that is responsible for this for being unreasonable in the negotiations.

Imo Trump positioned himself to look pretty reasonable. He offered dems more than what they were originally asking for. Now the people from both party's who say no are gonna be forced to justify why.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
The whole issue of immigration and this absurd wall is grounded in horrible ideological ignorance.

Immigration: Critics in the immigrant-rights community called Obama the "deporter in chief," even as enforcement-first advocates accused Obama of being soft on illegal immigrants. Both based their ideological criticisms on either liberal dreams or political ignorance. The enforcement priorities and policies, which evolved over the years, represented a significant departure from those of the Bush and Clinton administrations. The Obama-era policies represented the culmination of a gradual but consistent effort to practically narrow its enforcement focus to two key groups: The deportation of criminals and recent unauthorized border crossers. The most recent enforcement figures released by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on December 30, 2017 offer the latest evidence of these trends. Eighty-five percent of all removals and returns during fiscal year (FY) 2016 were of non-citizens who had recently crossed the U.S. border unlawfully. Of the remainder, who were removed from the U.S. interior, more than 90 percent had been convicted of what DHS defines as serious crimes. Obama wasn't called the "Deporter in Chief" for nothing.

Wall: This has been so pathetically politicized over the years that supporters of it can't even argue its legitimacy. It is not about terrorism, because terrorism in America flies in on airplanes or is homegrown. It is not about losing jobs, because no white man is lining up to pick crops; and no doctor's job is at stake. It is not about crime because there is no empirical evidence that immigration increases crime in the United States. In fact, a majority of studies in the U.S. have found lower crime rates among immigrants than among non-immigrants, and that higher concentrations of immigrants are associated with lower crime rates. But because it has been so politicized as defining the epitome of who is strong and who is weak against illegal immigration, it is really only a matter of wasteful exploitation. Instead of Republicans seeking to continue the practical trend that started with Clinton, developed under Bush, and further developed and pushed forward by Obama, which is to favor exponentially more advanced technology and a broader focus on comprehensive immigration reform, we play idiotic games with a physical barrier to "secure" the southern border like brainless assholes.
Its absurd to offer to reward criminals for their crimes.
It's absurd to offer amnesty to criminals to replenish your party's shrinking base
It's absurd to not control the flow of people and goods across the borders

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
You have confused democrats with republicans again. And your hyper-partisanship is showing again. Did you know that political debate involves more than insulting people you disagree with? It's true, it's true, it's damn true.

Schumer already pulled back on the deal.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politi...or-trumps-wall-as-immigration-fight-continuse

Any questions? Once Trump signs a doc that gives the "Dreamers" any kind of legal status, Schumer will reneg. It's in his blood. He's a NY shyster from way back. If I was Trump, I'd tell him to go **** himself.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...p-wants-other-immigration-curbs-idUSKBN1FE2QX

People on your side are already criticizing this deal. Without a guaranteed wall, I wouldn't sign up for a single deal. If Trump gives that wall away, he won't get elected.
 
I agree with most of this. Kids whose parents brought them over here had no choice. They shouldn't be punished for what their parents did. I had a handful of non-citizens in bootcamp with me when I was in the Navy. 1 Filipino and a couple from C. America. Their service was their ticket to citizenship. I think this is good idea. The problem I would have with college is that I would be against them receiving financial aid. While I'd don't believe they should be punished for what their parents did I don't think they should be rewarded either. Now if there was a private scholarship fund these other countries wanted to create for those kids, I'd have no problem with us taking their money.

Israel is a good example of how walls do make excellent deterrents. I don't necessarily think we need s Great Wall of China structure, but a physical barrier that provides more than token resistance I think is necessary. I agree with the idea of cracking down on employers and passive enforcement as the main line of attack is the most feasible. I do think raids still need to be conducted and manhunts for those criminals who might have already served their time but are at large.

This is a multi-faceted situation but I do agree that striking at the root -- which is the incentive -- is the best angle of attack.
So if I rob a bank and use the money to buy my kid a house and set him up a trust fund, the victim of my crime shouldn't be able to ask for that stuff back because it would be punishing the criminals child for something they didn't do. That's essentially the position your taking and the message your sending around the world.

It's also rather offensive that these adults are demanding they are not only allowed to stay but be given citizenship. Despite the awkward position they have been put into by their parent I am empathetic but they lose quite a bit of my sympathy when they should be humble and making a plea for our mercy but instead are militant and defiant. They should be angry with their parents not Americans

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
You love your sanctuary cities and states to harbor criminal illegals and while doing so you have to provide jobs for them. Now you want businesses to do the job you are unwilling to do in your sanctuary cities.
California is flirting with the idea of criminally prosecuting employers who cooperate with federal immigration regulations

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
Because Trump has to answer to those who voted for him if he wants them to vote for him again.

Are you implying the President does not have to represent the United States of America. Just the people that voted for him? That's certainly more divisive and partisan than what you've accused me of.

He does not have to answer to those who didn't vote for him in the first place because he isn't going to lose votes he never had in the first place.

If a quarter of a trillion dollars of tax money that he promised Mexico was going to cover vanishes to a failed border wall, it most certainly affects me. I may not want money to go to a project that will most certainly fail, but if it must happen I want to see actual groundwork to get it done and not waste billions upon billions of dollars for nothing.
 
Are you implying the President does not have to represent the United States of America. Just the people that voted for him? That's certainly more divisive and partisan than what you've accused me of.



If a quarter of a trillion dollars of tax money that he promised Mexico was going to cover vanishes to a failed border wall, it most certainly affects me. I may not want money to go to a project that will most certainly fail, but if it must happen I want to see actual groundwork to get it done and not waste billions upon billions of dollars for nothing.

I'm saying that you can't hold him to something he said when it was something you didn't even want in the first place, in addition to you not voting for him. You are doing nothing but playing partisan politics. Did you want the wall?
 
So if I rob a bank and use the money to buy my kid a house and set him up a trust fund, the victim of my crime shouldn't be able to ask for that stuff back because it would be punishing the criminals child for something they didn't do. That's essentially the position your taking and the message your sending around the world.

It's also rather offensive that these adults are demanding they are not only allowed to stay but be given citizenship. Despite the awkward position they have been put into by their parent I am empathetic but they lose quite a bit of my sympathy when they should be humble and making a plea for our mercy but instead are militant and defiant. They should be angry with their parents not Americans

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

You forget the part where you allowed the parents to rob the bank by opening the vault doors and providing them with the money for a cab to make their escape.

What would you do with the children in your scenario?

I think they're entitled to demand a pathway to citizenship, they've been allowed to grow up here without incident. If we were really as strong on illegal immigration as we say we'd have kicked them out with their parents long before they were allowed to reach adulthood. Whose fault is that? Theirs? No. It is ours. It is our fault for not enforcing our immigration laws. So what you have is a situation where you have a group of people who were brought here illegally through fault of their own and allowed to grow up here essentially as Americans because they and those that brought them here were allowed to stay through no fault of their own.

I can understand their indignation, I have to admit, I'd get a little god damn rambunctious myself if my entire life and fate were being decided by everyone else but me...
 
He does not have to answer to those who didn't vote for him in the first place because he isn't going to lose votes he never had in the first place.

Not always. And besides, he only got 46% of the votes in 2016. So he actually needs more people from the other side to vote for him.
 
If the deal is DACA for a wall, then I'm in. Total amnesty, no way. The wall works, ICE wants the wall, and US Special Forces couldn't breach the mock-up of the wall. BTW; Mexico has a nice big wall along it's Southern border.
 
You love your sanctuary cities and states to harbor criminal illegals and while doing so you have to provide jobs for them.

What exactly are you basing this on? Or are you just assuming so that I fit in a neat little box in your head.

Now you want businesses to do the job you are unwilling to do in your sanctuary cities.

I want to take effective action rather than waste billions of dollars on feel-good projects that in reality do nothing to solve the problem.
 
You forget the part where you allowed the parents to rob the bank by opening the vault doors and providing them with the money for a cab to make their escape.

What would you do with the children in your scenario?

I think they're entitled to demand a pathway to citizenship, they've been allowed to grow up here without incident. If we were really as strong on illegal immigration as we say we'd have kicked them out with their parents long before they were allowed to reach adulthood. Whose fault is that? Theirs? No. It is ours. It is our fault for not enforcing our immigration laws. So what you have is a situation where you have a group of people who were brought here illegally through fault of their own and allowed to grow up here essentially as Americans because they and those that brought them here were allowed to stay through no fault of their own.

I can understand their indignation, I have to admit, I'd get a little god damn rambunctious myself if my entire life and fate were being decided by everyone else but me...
You have an interesting perspective. Because we did not deport them as small children and we allowed them to take advantage of our education system while squatting here illegally we are now obligated to grant them citizenship.

How about this for an option. We give the adult children a choice since they are now old enough to take responsibility for their actions. Either turn your parents in so that we can deport them and in exchange we will offer you a new status here that you are our legal guests never eligible to be a citizen but we will give you the opprotunity for any of your children born here to become citizens

Or

Choose to be guilty of aiding and abetting known felons and share thier fate when we catch up to you.

They are not innocent victims. They are adults and culpable for their choices. They are uninvited guests here that we have been tolerating. They are in no position to demand anything from us. They need to wise up or they may find themselves in a much worse position than their parents have already put them in. They are living with a false sense of entitlement that can become a detriment for them if we change our minds about them.


Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
What exactly are you basing this on? Or are you just assuming so that I fit in a neat little box in your head.



I want to take effective action rather than waste billions of dollars on feel-good projects that in reality do nothing to solve the problem.
Ok let's solve the problem by deporting them all. Zero tolerance policy for all of them.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk
 
You have an interesting perspective. Because we did not deport them as small children and we allowed them to take advantage of our education system while squatting here illegally we are now obligated to grant them citizenship.

How about this for an option. We give the adult children a choice since they are now old enough to take responsibility for their actions. Either turn your parents in so that we can deport them and in exchange we will offer you a new status here that you are our legal guests never eligible to be a citizen but we will give you the opprotunity for any of your children born here to become citizens

Or

Choose to be guilty of aiding and abetting known felons and share thier fate when we catch up to you.

They are not innocent victims. They are adults and culpable for their choices. They are uninvited guests here that we have been tolerating. They are in no position to demand anything from us. They need to wise up or they may find themselves in a much worse position than their parents have already put them in. They are living with a false sense of entitlement that can become a detriment for them if we change our minds about them.


Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk



No-one is turning in their parents as kids or adults. They ain't no ratas..Be serious man, c'mon. Chances are, if I used my experience with illegals as a sample of the general sentiment, mami y papi are soon on their way back to Mexico to retire. That is after working here in America for 10-20 years at 2 or 3 jobs...

When they're allowed to stay here for 10-15 years without being kicked out what other perspective can one have but tacit approval. It is that tacit approval which has allowed them to grow up as Americans by culture never mind what their country of origin might be. As such, yes a pathway to citizenship should be offered. Now, if they're a bunch of pinche vatos locos who are causing mucho problemos than I am all for dropping their ass off just south of the Rio Grande, no questions asked.


The time for what you're talking about has long since passed. Never gonna happen. You'd be better off pounding sand man, really.

As such you've got to take a pragmatic view and find the best way for the country to benefit.
 
Ok let's solve the problem by deporting them all. Zero tolerance policy for all of them.

Why waste the money rounding up and deporting 12 million people, which will do nothing to prevent them from coming back, when you can crack down on the companies that hire them, make them leave voluntarily because they can't get jobs, and stop them from coming back.
 
Not always. And besides, he only got 46% of the votes in 2016. So he actually needs more people from the other side to vote for him.

You are comparing apples with oranges or counting your chickens or something. You can't compare 2016 to a future 2020 that hasn't even happened yet. We may have even more options for president in 2020 where the winner may win with 35% or 40% of the vote. And, Trump may win in 2020 with less than 46% of the vote. None of us know what the future holds. No one. But, a winner wants to make sure that the same people who voted for him in one election vote for him again in the following election so these are the people that Trump has to make happy and be accountable to, not the loony rabid left who didn't vote for him and won't next time around. He or she knows that there is a certain segment of the voting block who is never going to vote for them and they are wasting their time trying to make these people happy (remember those deplorables?). They are irrelevant. Do the left want the vote of the deplorables? In fact, what does the left do even now? Are they trying to get the votes of Trump's base? No. They aren't wasting their time with that. They are trying to bring out the vote of their own base. I mean, that's why Hillary lost, wasn't it? Her own base did not come out to vote? I do find it funny though that a lot of the left admits to what a horrible candidate Hillary was and yet they were all crying up a storm when she lost.
 
The two issues shouldn't be played against each other...They should be addressed individually...These types games represent what is wrong with our governing.

I vote no.
 
Last edited:
Its absurd to offer to reward criminals for their crimes.

The enforcement priorities and policies, which evolved through Clinton, Bush, and Obama, targets the criminals for deportation. There is no "reward."

It's absurd to offer amnesty to criminals to replenish your party's shrinking base

Oh, you mean to define illegal immigrants as simple criminals. Funny how easily we create an illusions of criminality for ourselves simply by conjuring up a new law or drawing a line on a map. Yes, let's get rid of those criminals so that you can pick the nation's tomatoes and grapes. Can you start work tomorrow?

It's absurd to not control the flow of people and goods across the borders

It is controlled. There are numerous laws, codes, and a well funded border patrol to enforce.



It is absurd to make exaggerated, shallow, ideological, and mindless political statements without any sense of the facts.
 
I want to take effective action rather than waste billions of dollars on feel-good projects that in reality do nothing to solve the problem.

Eliminating your sanctuary states/cities harboring illegals would be a first step. But you would never allow that to happen.
 
Back
Top Bottom