"Anything"? No.
More than they had to when Obama was president? Without a doubt.
Govt Shutdown
- Thread starter twenty02
- Start date
"Anything"? No.
More than they had to when Obama was president? Without a doubt.
If that's the case, then why is Trump signaling a willingness to sign a bill codifying DACA?
Are you saying that the majority of House Republicans are to the right of Trump on the issue? That there are no circumstances where a majority of them would vote to pass it?
No, I think that's wrong. There might be some, I'll give you that. But nowhere near a majority.
From a Vox article today:
But the Hastert Rule could pose a major obstacle. Already several Republican lawmakers have speculated it would be near impossible to reach 218 Republican votes — the majority of the GOP conference — on an immigration bill in the House.
Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA), who chairs a group of moderate Republicans in the Tuesday Group, says the Hastert Rule has been holding up negotiations. He expects that “any bipartisan deal on DACA will likely not receive the majority of the majority votes.”
“The majority of the majority — if I hear that one more time, my head is going to explode,” Dent said. “We are all for the majority of the majority on the bill until we are not.”
Yeah, that just sounds like somebody who's not getting his way. I'm sure that Graham and Flake will have the same frustrations in the Senate.
But they lost. And losing has consequences.
BTW, how would you answer my question? If it's going to be so problematic to get a majority of House Republicans to vote for a bill codifying DACA, then how to explain Donald Trump saying -- boasting even -- that he wants to sign one?
Read Dent's words carefully -- he said "any bipartisan deal"....meaning, anything that can attract Democratic votes, right?
Well, the calculus of what can or can't attract Democratic votes is situational and fluid. They'll vote (enough of them, at least) for the best they can get. They're not going to let DACA go away.
I think if anyone could state with certainty about anything that Trump would do, that person is a liar. We have heard from GOP Senators that they don’t know what Trump wants regarding DACA or immigration reform.
And yes, I believe there is a bipartisan DACA and immigration out there but stand by my point that the House GOP may not allow any bill to move. Trust me, I’d love to be wrong here.
And yes, I believe there is a bipartisan DACA and immigration out there but stand by my point that the House GOP may not allow any bill to move. Trust me, I’d love to be wrong here.
Well, that goes without saying. Is that ever not the case?
What I'm saying is that the Hastert Rule isn't, ultimately, going to be the problem here. Any bill that would have a problem attracting a majority of House Republicans is probably a bill Trump wouldn't sign regardless. And the leaders in both houses are not going to send him a bill he wouldn't sign.
The question is going to come down to whether or not the Dems -- at least in sufficient number, it certainly doesn't have to be a majority of them -- are going to be able to swallow the bitter pills that will no doubt be attached to codifying DACA.
Personally, I don't think they're ultimately going to have much choice. In fact, that's the reason they tried to wedge it into the appropriations process. They knew as well as Trump & Co. did that they'd have more leverage there than in a standalone deliberation over immigration policy.
I don't think the aim of the Republicans here is to stop DACA. I think their aim is to win long-desired changes on border security, diversity lottery, and and chain migration. Trump is saying that "border security" must include some movement on the wall -- we'll see on that, maybe it will.
I will say that I don't think Republicans would be terribly put out if DACA did go away. I just don't think they have a whole lot to lose from that happening (or, for that matter, gain if it were made permanent). But I don't think that's their intent here.
Marvin, when I say that Democrats aren't going to have much choice, it's things like this which make me say that:
Angry illegals converge on Schumer home
Now, if they were descending on, say, Paul Ryan's home, I wouldn't think much of it. These folks just don't have a great deal of influence over most Republicans. It would be like union members throwing a fuss at Republicans....what else is new? But when they get angry at Democrats, well that's something different indeed.
Read this chant they were doing, "Say it loud, say it clear, immigrants are welcome here!”. Does that sound like a group dying to see massive cuts to immigration?
Of course not, I didn't say they were.
What I'm saying is that they're not going to tolerate DACA ending -- which puts Schumer in a weak position.
It's one thing to talk about stemming the flow of people coming here from elsewhere. It's quite different when you're talking about the prospect of deporting people already here. Given a choice, which do you think the people here are going to take?
And these people know who WANTS to deport DACA. They are mad that Schumer didn't stick with the hardline stance. They want guerrilla warfare from Schumer, not appeasement. Think about your side of the aisle and the 1 million attempts to repeal ACA. How many times have Republicans called Dems and said "we need to repeal ACA and here's what we'll give you"? They haven't because that's a sign of weakness. There has been virtually no efforts to negotiate ACA because it is fundamental to your side to kill it dead. I think most ardent DACA people see it is a basic human right. People tend to fight for them, not demurely give in. If I bother to look online at comments, I see a hatred of Republicans and now a hatred of Schumer for not going nuclear. I don't see people saying "we must give the GOP what they want". Can you find any quotes to the effect? Would you give the Dems what they want to get ACA repealed?
The GOP got dick from that bill. An authorization to fund means diddly poo. That is why Schumer was lookiing to hand out more authorizations for DACA. An authorization without an appropriation is not worth anything. They authorized building a wall in 2013 and then did not fund it. Deals like those are why we find ourselves in the place we are now.
OK, let's stop it there. Because this is precisely what I'm saying.
Ask yourself: who stands to lose from that? Or, more accurately, who stands to lose more? Do you think any of these people were voting Republican....particularly on a ticket topped by Donald Trump? Maybe some were, but far fewer than were voting Dem.
Their gripes are going to have about as much effect on Republicans as union gripes do.....they carry very little political equity. How much effect do you think pro-life groups are going to have by screaming at Democrats? None -- the Dems have nothing to lose.
Of course they aren't saying that, Marvin. But it's neither here nor there.
The Dems are probably going to be faced with a choice of which outcome is less bad for them: getting DACA (but with some mixture of the Republican demands tagged on) or sacrificing DACA (but not acquiescing to those demands).
What I'm predicting is that they'll choose the former.....among other reasons, choosing the latter would risk political pandemonium for them.
That would depend on the context and what the range of realistic alternatives were.
I would not be if it was Michelle. If you think back you’d realize I never participated in any criticism of her.
Technically, she may have broken the law. It’s speculation, and it’s highky unlikely they would have deported her - as several articles have noted. And she actually came here legally, that’s not in question. You’re making a way bigger deal out of us than it is.
What laws did Michelle allegedly violate?
So your argument is that the payment receipts recovered by the AP are forged? Otherwise, she very clearly violated the law. If this violation was discovered at the time, she absolutely would have been deported. A convicted visa fraud felon is treated no better by law than someone who enters illegally. I would guess it's actually treated more seriously with harsher criminal penalties.
The President's wife immigration history is a conservation we should have in the context of a President who is denying the spouses of American citizens the exact same right that his own wife took advantage of. Don't you find that despicable?
And that's ignoring her own alleged criminality.
I think you have a reasonable point here. Under law the behavior the President's wife engaged in would have, if discovered, (1) gotten her deported; (2) made it extremely hard for her to enter the country legally in the future as a non-citizen or (3) be granted citizenship through some normal immigration path. But, had he married Melania anyway would that have prohibited her from entering the country as Trumps wife? Will your future (future right?) spouse be able to gain citizenship by virtue of marrying a citizen?
If she was deported she would have received a 10 year ban and she would have had a much more difficult time gaining an immigrant visa after the 10 years if not impossible. I don't know the exact technicalities.
Furthermore, my initial point was that a citizen was recently prosecuted by the Trump admin all the way to the Supreme court for lying on their initial visa application years ago in an attempt to revoke their citizenship and deport them. Melania Trump could theoretically be facing prosecution and having her citizenship revoked for doing the same.
I'm currently married as of August and living in the UK. My wife is an Iranian national and her visa appointment is on February 6th. I'm expecting a lengthy review process. There are no clear guidelines for how waivers are granted. It's intentionally vague. I'm expecting this administration to make this hell as difficult as possible. Trump's wife was granted a green card on the basis of their marriage, but he is attempting to deny our right to the same.
You are confirming my premise and argument. You say that most in the GOP think all those kids could be allowed to stay in the country or deported (to "shitholes" according to the President). You say it is a matter of indifference to the GOP. That sounds right to me but only about the business wing of the GOP. But, this leaves out the white nationalist wing of the GOP...this wing is not indifferent about the DACA kids...this wing passionately wants these kids deported. The combination of indifference and hostility leads to the prediction this bill will not pass, as we both agree, unless the Dems pays some serious ransom. But our prediction and advice to the Dems depends upon our mutual belief that the GOP is depraved enough to deport the dreamers.
What if we are being too harsh on the GOP? They are not so depraved to actually deport the kids and only mean to leverage toothless threats to get political loot. If we believed that then we would rationally advise the Dems not to pay a damn thing to the Repubs to pass the bill. In this case there will certainly be a bill, ultimately, and it won't cost the Dems too much.
Our view is that the GOP is depraved enough to deport the dreamers, right? In that case I think there is a real risk of no deal. The Dems may underestimate the GOP depravity and fail to pay enough. Or, it may be that GOP can't get a deal that is not too costly for the Dems to pay. In either case the deal fails and the dreamers get deported. If so then we will add another chapter to our nation's long history of depravity towards people of color and children. If deal does get reached, i.e., then we don't need to write a whole chapter. But it will be enough to remember the combination of indifference and ethnic hostility that constitutes the entirety of today's GOP coalition.
How about that stock market...amirite?
Congratulations to you both!!! Sorry that you have to endure this hell but know that decent people wish you and your wife all the best and hope for a speedy resolution. You will both be in my thoughts.
I can't believe I missed this before, as it's exactly the kind of thing that gets my pedantic panties in a wad, but Fro is right; "chain migration" is not the correct term for this. Chain migration refers to a different phenomenon that may sometimes overlap what we are talking about here, but doesn't have to. Specifically, it refers to large movements of people from one place to another. For example, large migrations of Irish and Italian immigrants to ethnic enclaves on the Eastern seaboard represent chain migration. Chain migration can even happen within the same country, such as the movement of large southern rural populations to northern cities, or farmers fleeing the dust bowl to California.
And, no, "chain migration" is not found in federal law (or regulation). The technical legal term for what is being discussed here is "Preference allocation for family-sponsored immigrants."
I suspect there was some recent GOP talking point issued that told people to start calling this "chain migration" because it sounds scarier, because up until recently, it wasn't a term you heard, and now it's everywhere. Right here on this forum, for example, before last Thursday, the term had only ever been used once. In the past week, it shows up a couple dozen times.
Immigrants first are granted Conditional Resident status. Think probationary period. Being married to a US citizen only gets you consideration for that status; nothing is guaranteed. Then after a certain time and meeting some few "good behavior" requirements, the "conditions" are removed and they become Permanent Residents. Then you're basically home free. You can apply for citizenship after a few years, but it's not necessary. My Kommie Kanadian wife has chosen not to. She can't vote, hold office, or work certain jobs, but otherwise she has all the rights and privileges of a citizen.
I don’t think Schumer wants a DACA bill now or he wouldn’t be changing his position. I think the Dems want this to drag into next year so that they can make it a huge campaign issue. I don’t think that will work, but I thing that is their strategy. By this time next year the economy will continue to improve. Most people will get some kind of tax relief, no matter how small, etc. and the Republicans will likely hold on both houses. Trump may or may not be President, but that will not play into the mid term results IMO.
I think the term pops up because it is a simple term to explain a complex idea. If there is anything that Democrats and Republicans can agree on, it is ovsrsimplification to make a point.
Chain migration, for me, basically means that you get here and by virtue of you being here, all of your Aunts, Uncles, Cousins, 2nd Cousins, etc. get to come to.
I don't agree with any of that...
1) There is no way on earth Charles Schumer wants to play any part in DACA ending, even temporarily. Clearly, if that were to happen, he and every other Democrat (and the mainstream media, but I repeat myself) will go to every length to blame it 100% on Trump and the Republicans. What other choice would they have?
But here's the thing: both parties do not stand to lose equally if DACA were to end. The political blowback for Republicans -- even if those who are charged up about DACA give more of the blame to them -- would be muted. But the blowback for Dems would be significant.
Schumer's going to cut a deal. DACA will not only be kept -- but it appears that Trump is including a pathway to citizenship for current DACA enrollees as well as all those who are eligible but not enrolled. And Trump will get most of what he wants on the border, lottery, and chain migration.
2) While things can change and I do agree that a lot of people are going to be surprised to find that they did get a tax cut -- as opposed to the tax hike to be given away to billionaires they were told -- I think the political winds would have to change significantly to save the Republican House majority.
It's not out of the question, I suppose. But virtually all of the writing on the wall right now doesn't bode well for them.
People are going to have to notice they got a tax cut. That doesn't always happen. As this story points out, the changes in withholding happened at the same time new insurance rates took effect. The take home pay may not have changed or went down. With so many checks direct deposited many don't ever look at their stubs (and many just don't anyway). In addition, when there were tax cuts in 2008/9, polls showed most Americans unaware. Here is a news story on that tax cut poll from 2008.
There's definitely some truth to that.
Anytime some change takes place where people's net pay goes down, our payroll dept's phones ring off the hook. I remember a few years ago when the 1-year moratorium on employee SS tax expired. The supervisor estimated that at least a quarter of our employees called in about it -- and some were quite angry. I asked her how many called when the moratorium when into effect.....yep, zero.
That doesn't mean they didn't notice it, I guess. But they certainly weren't going to call in about it when it went up.
I don't know -- maybe relatively few will notice their taxes went down. Either way, I don't think it's going to have any significant political impact. The GOP, particularly in the House, is in trouble.
I give the GOP for a more comprehensive tax plan than it looked like it would be. It isn't something I supported, but it isn't end of world either. But I am not going to forecast November, no way, too many variables. How many total idiots win party nominations? Will we be in a war? Will the economy really boom? Will the economy crash? At this point the generic ballot looks good the the D's, but there is a lot of time for that to change. If forced, the Dems do OK but not a wave. OK might be enough to take back the House, I don't know. But a if the economy stays near 3% growth, a wave may be hard to come by.
Elections ebb and flow and the president's party usually loses seats (often lots of them) in mid-term elections. Of recent ones, only in 1998 and 2002 did the president's party not lose seats.
In the former, Republicans were getting backlash for impeaching a popular president. In the latter, it was the post-911 period and we were about to go to war -- it was a national security election, which is usually going to favor Republicans.
But in 1994, 2006, 2010, and 2014, the president's party took beatings....and the first three of them were huge.
Of course, most hardcore partisans look at these as repudiations of the president and his party. And why wouldn't they? I'm not sure that's always what drives these, though.
I should also point out that Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama were each 2-term presidents, despite all seeing their parties take midterm thumpings.
Not sure why you continue to believe there will be a DACA deal. There is no path forward for a deal.
Trump's plan landed like a hot turd.
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/370920-trump-immigration-plan-hits-wall-of-opposition
Er, so?
Every budget proposal sent up by every president in my adult life has been pronounced "dead on arrival" when received by Congress. That doesn't mean they haven't passed budgets...and spent shitloads of our money.
They'll get a deal -- because it would be suicidal for Democrats not to.
Suicidal for Democrats?
I don't think so . . . politically speaking not getting a deal cements the GOP as the party to hate for an awful lot of folks, what with 80%+ percent of folks wanting DACA and a majority not wanting a wall built.
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/23/580037717/what-the-latest-immigration-polls-do-and-dont-say
This isn't comparable to budgets.
What does Congress always do on immigration? Nothing, as they can never make a deal.
Dems aren't going to take a deal that gives away all these other items for only DACA.
Well, that's not what it means, and it's also not how it currently works. If that's how you actually think immigration works, no wonder we can't come to an agreement about it.
They've never had a good motivating reason to.
Not all of them in the precise form Trump wants, no. But most of them, in some form or other, yeah I bet they will.
If they don't, Trump and the Republicans are out pretty much nothing and the Dems are going to have to explain why they voted to put 1.5 million Dreamers back in danger of being deported -- having turned down not only permanent legal status, but a path to full citizenship for all of them.
You really think the Dems would do that? If so, they're idiots.
Last edited:
The number of people supporting DACA is politically meaningless.
To understand that, consider these two questions:
1) How much support did Trump lose when he announced he was ending the EO and would give Congress 6 months to replace it?
2) How much would Hillary have lost if she had done the same thing?
Yes, I know she wouldn't have done it....but that, too, answers the question well enough. The parties are in completely different places on this issue. The Dems don't have the option of letting it go -- they know it, and so does Trump.
Yes. Again...DACA is not the end all, be all of immigration. If the GOP demands all these changes to legal immigration on top of border security.....it's not going to happen. DACA is only a small subset of the large issue. No side will ever give away 100% of their leverage points to get only a small concession from the other side.
