Even Lindsey Graham said it is impossible to make a deal with Steven Miller. The fact that he is still in the WH is reprehensible.
Govt Shutdown
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
Positions alone don’t equal partisanship. Blindly following politicians because they have a D or R behind their name or deciding your position on an issue is one way or another because it’s now your party’s position is partisanship. I don’t pretend I’m less partisan than many here. I know I am.
OK, you guys got me curious so I just looked it up to see WTF you're talking about with this illegal immigrant stuff. I always figured it was totally made up BS from the left as the birther stuff was made up from the right. As you can see by the article Melania didn't come into the country illegally - she had a visa so she entered the country legally. The issue was that she might have worked while on a tourist visa:
The wife of the GOP presidential nominee, who sometimes worked as a model under just her first name, has said through an attorney that she first came to the U.S. from Slovenia on Aug. 27, 1996, on a B1/B2 visitor visa and then obtained an H-1B work visa on Oct. 18, 1996.
The documents obtained by the AP show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, during a time when her visa allowed her generally to be in the U.S. and look for work but not perform paid work in the country. The documents examined by the AP indicate that the modeling assignments would have been outside the bounds of her visa.
It is highly unlikely that the discovery will affect the citizenship status of Mrs. Trump. The government can seek to revoke the U.S. citizenship of immigrants after the fact in cases when it determines a person willfully misrepresented or concealed facts relevant to his naturalization. But the government effectively does this in only the most egregious cases, such as instances involving terrorism or war crimes.
What's the statute of limitations on possibly working while on a tourist visa, which she might not even have known was a problem? Are you guys really going to be all petty and silly about something like this? Do you honestly think this is a huge deal worthy of an investigation of some kind?The documents obtained by the AP show she was paid for 10 modeling assignments between Sept. 10 and Oct. 15, during a time when her visa allowed her generally to be in the U.S. and look for work but not perform paid work in the country. The documents examined by the AP indicate that the modeling assignments would have been outside the bounds of her visa.
It is highly unlikely that the discovery will affect the citizenship status of Mrs. Trump. The government can seek to revoke the U.S. citizenship of immigrants after the fact in cases when it determines a person willfully misrepresented or concealed facts relevant to his naturalization. But the government effectively does this in only the most egregious cases, such as instances involving terrorism or war crimes.
90% of people want more gun control...and yet the GOP doesn't offer it...hell of thing to stand on the policy of making sure the mentally ill have guns...and yet that is where the GOP stands. The tax cuts were dramatically unpopular...the cuts to health care were dramatically unpopular...the President stands at 39% approval rating...dramatically unpopular and yet the GOP stands with Trump. Now you think that hurting poor kids through CHIP or deporting the dreamers is going really help the GOP? Dear Lord is right.
The Trump administration recently took someone to the supreme Court in an attempt to revoke their citizenship for lying on their initial visa application. SCOTUS ruled against the admin.
There is no stature of limitations. Applying for a tourist visa with the intention of working is fraud. A federal crime that can have your citizenship revoked. Furthermore, why don't you want a further investigation if you care about the rule of law? Why doesn't the law apply equally to everyone? I thought that was your issue with the email server.
It's especially ironic in light of Trump's rhetoric against illegal immigration.
P.S. I guarantee the officer asked what her intention was and if she planned to work. Have you ever been interviewed for a visa before?
Do you have any idea the hell some of us are going through with visa issues? Why shouldn't everyone be treated equally.
And then those lefties who most staunchly disagreed with the tax cut, looked at their pay check and said... Hmm... And then a new conservative was born. Everyone lived long and prospered. The end.
Until people get off their asses and vote or stop running purity tests on non-republican candidates, the minority party in charge will continue to do the crap they do.
I honestly think I have been an illegal in China 2-3 times, after reading this. No you freaks, I wasn't a model, but I was "working".
Paychecks go up more under Democratic presidents than under Republican ones. You knew that right?
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.20140913
The US economy has performed better when the president of the United States is a Democrat rather than a Republican, almost regardless of how one measures performance. For many measures, including real GDP growth (our focus), the performance gap is large and significant.
You didn't even read the article. Nothing in it said she intentionally did anything illegal. You would have read that typically nothing happens to a person that does this except in the most egregious cases. You really think there is no statute of limitations? Do you really think she should have her citizenship revoked. Do you really think exposing Top Secret information on an unclassified server is the same level of working for a couple weeks on a tourist visa, possibly innocently? You want to be petty and ridiculous. Go ahead. Seriously, I understand you're frustrated about your visa issues, but get a grip.
And by the way, I've had visas to several countries - never had an interview. What the heck put you on the list for extra scrutiny?
I have a feeling that Melania would welcome deportation right now. Reports are she’s not real happy sharing intimates with porn stars. Jus’ sayin’. Have we ever had a President go through a divorce while in office?
You understand that there’s going to be significant issues with this down the road, right?
I have yet to see you show an understanding of anything on here, really. Your analysis seems to be “well a Republican said it, so I’m on board.”
What I wouldn’t give for a Melania/Stormy sex tape. I’d be first in line for that one.
Working on a tourist visa is considered serious by most countries. In fact, the norm is that you are at a minimum deported and receive a 10 year no entry ban. (That is if you aren't criminally charge)
@Joe_Hoopsier your odds of being caught are miniscule, but if you are caught you will face the hammer.
@Aloha Hoosier Correct there is no statue of limitations for this offense. Google the recent supreme Court case.
How do you take away from that article that her intention was anything other then to engage in paid modeling? Do you disagree that the consular officer would have asked what her intention was?
No, I don't think her citizenship should be revoked. My issue is that the President attempts to revoke someone's citizenship for doing the exact same thing that his wife did, if not worse in her case. I find his actions despicable in light of his wife's history.
I thought that one of the big issues with the Clinton case was the double standard. The fact that the average Joe would be in jail for doing the same.
Was asked some questions for a Russian tourist visa and student as well. Heck, even on arrival at many countries they ask your plan. If you state, "looking for work" you will be sent back on the first plane home.
I won’t argue with that. She is married to a guy who seems to pretty much a pig - trying to put it nicely.
I’m unfamiliar with this Supreme Court case you’ve mentioned, but the article said it would be very unusual for her to face any serous consequences for what she did so deporting her or revoking citizenship would be treating her differently.
If the questions at the entry point is what you’re talking about as an interview, of course that has happened. Never to obtain a visa though.
Hurting kids through CHIP? WTF are you talking about? They funded the program for 6 years.
The GOP tied BOTH those groups of kids to the rails and demanded the Dems pay ransom to get them untied. The Dems paid up with the Continuing Resolution in order to TEMPORARILY untie the CHIP kids. The dreamers are still tied to the rails with the train fast approaching. It looks like the GOP house is mostly quite excited for the train to hit and the carnage begin. You say that you support the dreamers but laud the GOP strategy. You say that if the Dems don't pay up and the kids get hurt, well there will be nobody to blame but the Dems. I don't see it that way. In a ransom situation I understand if the parents pay the kidnappers but if something happens to the kidnapped kids I blame the kidnappers. I certainly don't laud the kidnappers as "great negotiators" even if the ransom is paid and the kids set free.
Such emotional hyperbole. It’s negotiation and compromise, it’s what Congress is supposed to do. What you want is for Democrats to get everything they want without giving Republicans anything they’d like. Congress doesn’t work that way. The world doesn’t work that way.
Its no shame in being a rent-boy -- everyone who takes a salary and shite at the same time is are all prozzies/rent-boy in my books.
Btw. Hope you got water-based gel or the Chinese equivalent.
I won’t argue with that. She is married to a guy who seems to pretty much a pig - trying to put it nicely.
Aloha -- you are giving pigs a bad name.
Their IQ is probably higher than Trump's plus they offer us that magical thing called BACON* -- as opposed to the crap that's being served up by Trump.
* The only reason why I cant turn vegetarian or Muslim.
I have a house that is on the market and you are a buyer. i set a price and you make me an offer. We go back and forth with me lowering my price and you raising your offer until we make a deal. An alternative approach is that I set my price and you tell me that you will shoot my pets unless I lower my price. I refuse your offer initially and you demonstrate that you put no value on the lives of my animals by killing my horse and putting it's head into my bed. At some abstract level I suppose both situations can be called negotiation and compromise. Both types of negotiations are quite pervasive--that is the way the world works as you say. But it is rare to find someone who can't differentiate between the two situations and who endorses both as "what people are supposed to do".
More hyperbole. I also would guess You haven’t done much negotiation. I’ve done a lot of it.
The GOP is literally threatening to deport kids--dreamers--to countries they know nothing about for crimes they had nothing to do with. They demand the Dems provide give up something of value in order to stop that from happening. It is not hyperbole to say the dreamers are held hostage it is precisely the case. Now, as i say, such ransoming is pretty common in the world. Maybe you have even had to deal with real cases of exactly such a thing. If your advice is to keep one's emotions in check, if your advice is to remember that it is often better to negotiate solutions rather than fight...I take that as good advice and thank you for it. But the practice of taking hostages deserves condemnation. We have treaties that condemn the practice for good reason.
http://www.un.org/en/sc/ctc/docs/conventions/Conv5.pdf
I'm getting that impression of a number of people here.
As for me, I've been on a slew of multi-employer negotiating committees over the years and, yes, both sides do their level best to maximize their bargaining leverage heading into it. And there's always more stick than carrot involved.
Both sides will, of course, use amendments to get a bill that has all of what they want and none of what they don't want. Duh.
It remains to be seen just how much Republicans will be able to put in as a condition of codifying DACA -- it won't be everything, but it won't be nothing either. So, the first question will be how much the GOP will be able to get in the Senate bill (and, of course, if they can reconcile with the House). The second question will end up being how much the Democrats are willing to abide and still vote for DACA.
It's going to be a tough position for them, IMO. They are NOT going to be the ones responsible for DACA failing.
Why in the world would the president even need congressional approval to close (or at least stop using) the Gitmo detention facility?
Obviously you've never applied for a visa in person. Do you have a stiff upper lip?
If Michelle had done the same, you and the right would be screaming for a prosecution and it would be on the front page of fox.
Are you at least prepared to admit this isn't a conspiracy and that it's not in the same ballpark of birtherism? Technically, she did break the law.
Fyi, people are regularly deported and arrested for working while on a tourist visa. That's a federal crime, full stop.
Technically, they’re literally promising to legislate a fix for that so they aren’t deported. There are only a few that have publically expressed otherwise. You expect that this legislative fix would contain nothing else that the GOP would like to see, such as border security funding? That’s not the real world, and they’d be lousy legislators if that were to happen. Of course it’s better to negotiate, and the Democrats will be lousy legislators if the refuse and stick to this hyperbolic hostage taking political point alone.
Congress has some power too and they asserted it in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. It’s similar to military bases, the President can’t unilaterally close them, and he can’t close Fort Leavenworth military prison by Presidential order either.
let's work through your scenario in which both Dems and Repubs are assumed to benefit from passing DACA. Now, the Repubs have proposal power...they can give an ultimatum to the Democrats...accept this bill that includes DACA or else no DACA. If DACA actually benefits the GOP then the Dems should say no to any additional conditions because they rationally anticipate the GOP will lower the price on the next ultimatum continually to zero. Rationally, parties in a negotiation should never accept less than their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement). If the GOP actually benefits from DACA as you propose then the Dems need only wait for them to pass it without paying anything. On the other hand, as seems more likely, the GOP's BATNA is no DACA...because ceteris paribus they prefer no DACA...then the Dems will have to give up something to get DACA. So...if DACA ultimately fails it will be because of two things. First, the GOP prefers the world with no DACA to the world with DACA. Second, because the GOP values the world without DACA more than the Dems value the world with it. The party that deserves sole blame for DACA failing is the one that doesn't want DACA. DACA only fails because of that and even then only fails when the GOP imposes a higher price than the Dems are willing or able to pay.
You’ve got it all wrong. Republicans care about the dreamers. That’s why they voted to defund the program shortly after it started. Republicans tried to defund DACA in order to give more freedom and liberty to the dreamers.
Good post. So far the House GOP is demanding the Dems give them power of attorney. The Dems cannot do that. That 2013 compromise was a decent bill, the GOP got a lot from it. There is no way the Democratic Party can move significantly right of that bill. A bill which passed the Republican Senate
Bad premise.
I think the consequences of a failure to extend DACA would be far less costly to Republicans than Democrats.
Consider it this way: what did Trump's approval rating do the day he announced he was rescinding it? Now, what do you suppose Hillary's would've done had she been POTUS and done the same thing? It would've been a disaster for her, don't you think?
I think the right way to look at the GOP's view of DACA is that (a) they're OK with it, but (b) they don't have to have it, (c) they wouldn't have a whole lot to lose if it went away, and as such (d) they'll renew it, but not for free.
For the Dems, on the other hand, I'd say it's not far from a "must-pass" bill. If Dems end up voting against it so as to prevent its renewal, I'm sure they'll scream from the mountaintops that it was the Republicans' fault for insisting on too many conditions. I'm sure that would go over well.
You're comparing a government where Barack Obama was president to one where Donald Trump is president?
The Democrats are going to have to move right of that bill, or they will be the ones to vote against DACA. And that is what they really can ill afford to do.
You seem to think both parties have the same stake in DACA's continuance. You should reconsider that.
You seem to think that the people that want DACA would accept ANYTHING to get it. I've linked that 2013 bill twice and asked specifically what was wrong with it. No one has answered. 40,000 border agents, fencing and a merit system. I am quite confident Hispanics will know extortion when they see it.
QED. Trump recently tweeted this:
Now, I don't think that Trump's view is representative of the GOP at large. I think Republicans, for the most part, range from being OK with DACA to being in favor of it. But I don't think there are enough of the latter who would vote with Democrats to override a veto. And, besides, a Republican Congress almost certainly isn't going to give a Republican president a bill he'd veto...particularly not one with these kinds of stakes.
If Trump feels he can get away with saying this publicly, what message does that send to Congressional Republicans?
Chuck Schumer fully understands, especially after his humiliating defeat, that if there is no Wall, there is no DACA
Now, I don't think that Trump's view is representative of the GOP at large. I think Republicans, for the most part, range from being OK with DACA to being in favor of it. But I don't think there are enough of the latter who would vote with Democrats to override a veto. And, besides, a Republican Congress almost certainly isn't going to give a Republican president a bill he'd veto...particularly not one with these kinds of stakes.
If Trump feels he can get away with saying this publicly, what message does that send to Congressional Republicans?
All of this ignores the House and the Hastert rule. Ryan could easily get the votes to pass a bill with bipartisan support. However, under that rule, he will never get a caucus majority. Many in the House are much more in line with Stephen Miller. Let’s not gloss over this fact.
Latest posts
-
What the hell are schools supposed to do to stop the war in Gaza
- Latest: mcmurtry66
-
-
-
-