Would that be the same CBO that predicted 25 million people would sign up for Obamacare but in reality 12 million actually signed up, less than half ? Now your telling me a 10 year out prediction is reliable? Americans won't do low paying jobs well how about the fast food industry as a starter. Illegal immigration causes permanent damage. In Florida and Texas there are crowded classrooms, not enough teachers to teach not enough space. In healthcare, emergency treatment centers are filled with non paying illegals where by US citizens health treatments are delayed which also drives up the cost of healthcare. If you have traveled and worked with health and education officials or had contact with these industries you would agree but you don't really travel do you. Legal immigration is a good thing.
Official DNC covention thread
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
Are you interested in getting control of the border or not?
Do YOU know what compromise means? It means the Senate takes a bill passed by the House, like HR2, and changes it or accepts it as is. If they change it, it has to go back to the House for negotions, where compromise occurs.
But guess what - the Senate wouldn't even act on it. They did nothing with it. Is that how Democrats 'compromise'?
My cancer has nothing to do with it and it's in remission. But thank you.
There wasn't a chance in hell Republicans would get enough votes to pass that bill. That's just another Democrat talking point against Trump.
Because, you know, he's the bogeyman and can be blamed for everything. Not a stupid bill that would still allow millions of illegals to cross the border without any action - no, it's all Trump's fault.
Last edited:
DANC, found this commentary piece from a Brookings Institute (center-left source ) contributor which I found interesting about immigration.
Realize the piece can be called another example of media bias. Nevertheless, offer it up for discussion.
The collapse of bipartisan immigration reform: A guide for the perplexed
Brookings Senior Fellow William Galston explains why Republicans failed to support the bipartisan immigration bill.
www.brookings.edu
.
They negotiated with Republicans in the Senate, which is far more than the House did. The House passed it without taking and Democratic input. It was right wing porn because that is what the House wanted. It got the respect from the much further left it deserved.
If the Senate passed Medicare For All, you think the House would amend it for a compromise bill?
You all don't want an open border (allegedly) and neither do we. There shouldn't be anything to compromise over.
You guys are demonstrating another fatal flaw of MAGA - never compromise. It means you’re willing to settle for none of what you want rather than some of. You can never take any steps toward your goals. A party that refuses to compromise on anything will never accomplish anything and it will die a slow and painful death.
MtM, DANC asks whether we are interested in border security or not.
Complicated question as we want some tourists and visitors along with acceptable applicants for citizenship. Thus we want open borders for some under certain conditions.
The problem comes in as to who and how we allow people to come and go into our country. Obviously we don't want terrorists or those prone to commit crimes even as visitors much less become citizens.
For starters, let us focus on tourists and terrorist threats. By far the greatist terrorist attack on the U.S. was the 9/11 attack. Eighteen of the nineteen terrorists were here on tourist or business visas.
Tourists visiting since the end of Covid and before number over 50 million per year. In terms of money spent by tourists the U.S. leads the world while placing third in the world behind Spain and Italy.
Interestingly we conveniently forget about 9/11 when it comes to border security along with the 50 million plus tourists which enter our country each year.
Prior to Biden around a million illegals were getting in. How is agreeing to a deal that allows almost 2 million a compromise? 500k would have been a a compromise.
I agree that compromise is usually the best way to go. I'm willing to compromise on many things, but democrats (all of a sudden) are saying they don't want open borders but aren't willing to back it up. You either want closed borders or you don't. And by the way this BS all the time about MAGA well he's not my guy. If that were true I guess if you have a speaker who says , you can read the bill after it passes then that's MAGA too. Because that doesn't sound like compromise to me, (this last sentence was added later)
Last edited:
What is it that we were going to get out of the compromise? If we literally do nothing about the border, we get roughly 2 million people a year. 2 million that have already overwhelmed the courts that are supposedly going to adjudicate the 1.8 million a year we get if we "compromise". Come on Aloha, that isn't a compromise, it is capitulation. By the link Hoot posted above, Trump's remain in Mexico and other policies had the border down to 40,000 crossing a month and less than 500,000 a year. That should be the compromise. We want zero illegals, we have been getting around 2 million. Democrats supposedly don't want illegals either. Given that is the case, wouldn't the compromise (which again is just illogical as both sides claim to want to stem illegal immigration) be much closer to the zero we all supposedly want as opposed to the 2 million we are actually getting?
The public at large is much closer to the GOP position on immigration, they should have laughed that "compromise" out of the room and held the Democrats feet to the fire. You don't want illegal immigration? Then stop it. Trump had crossing down quite a bit and he is supposedly a moron. Biden had to go back to his Trump's policies because the "let em in" thing is EXTREMELY unpopular with the electorate.
6 in 10 See Illegal Immigration As Very Serious Problem | Monmouth University Polling Institute
Majority now support building a border wall
Why should the GOP almost completely cave on an issue where they actually hold the popular position?
2020 was an anomaly - COVID reduced immigration and also allowed measures due to an emergency which aren't allowed now. A reduction of the current rate in half would have been a compromise. Hiring more asylum judges to more rapidly process and reduce (expelling) asylum seekers would have been a compromise. We got nothing.
But that wasn't the compromise. We're arguing about misinformation about the compromise. No one talks about what was in it. A reduction and faster processing is a step toward what we want. We got nothing.What is it that we were going to get out of the compromise? If we literally do nothing about the border, we get roughly 2 million people a year. 2 million that have already overwhelmed the courts that are supposedly going to adjudicate the 1.8 million a year we get if we "compromise". Come on Aloha, that isn't a compromise, it is capitulation. By the link Hoot posted above, Trump's remain in Mexico and other policies had the border down to 40,000 crossing a month and less than 500,000 a year. That should be the compromise. We want zero illegals, we have been getting around 2 million. Democrats supposedly don't want illegals either. Given that is the case, wouldn't the compromise (which again is just illogical as both sides claim to want to stem illegal immigration) be much closer to the zero we all supposedly want as opposed to the 2 million we are actually getting?
The public at large is much closer to the GOP position on immigration, they should have laughed that "compromise" out of the room and held the Democrats feet to the fire. You don't want illegal immigration? Then stop it. Trump had crossing down quite a bit and he is supposedly a moron. Biden had to go back to his Trump's policies because the "let em in" thing is EXTREMELY unpopular with the electorate.
6 in 10 See Illegal Immigration As Very Serious Problem | Monmouth University Polling Institute
Majority now support building a border wallwww.monmouth.edu
Why should the GOP almost completely cave on an issue where they actually hold the popular position?
I'm not admitting anything - we don't ever discuss what the deal actually was. That would be nice. Also, it was a Democrat-Republican deal. Why can't we be accurate?
The same can be said for Biden/Harris followers 99% of the time, so let’s be real here. The Democrats offer a weak compromise, so ridiculous they know Rep. leadership won’t accept it, then come back on social media sites to criticize adversaries for their unwillingness to compromise. Make me laugh some more! (Insert voluminous guffaws, cackles and exuberant howlings)
I have no problem with legal immigrants. Let’s get entrants properly registered, weeding out the felons, thugs and cross-eyed mean looking rejects. Our government knows my name, where I live and my criminal history (or lack thereof). Why shouldn’t it be this way for everyone? Why should some be allowed to live in anonymity until they get caught in some egregious act upon law abiding citizens?
I see 14-16 year old white kids detasseling corn in the hot August sun. Don’t try and tell me we need illegal immigrants for jobs American citizens refuse to do.
Right, 2019 was a worse year than anything Obama had. But that gets lost because COVID allowed more draconian responses
So Trump will bring back a new disease so he can halt immigration?
You sure, which side argued the illegal immigrant Gonzalez kid should stay?
"Do YOU know what compromise means? It means the Senate takes a bill passed by the House, like HR2, and changes it or accepts it as is. If they change it, it has to go back to the House for negotions, where compromise occurs.
But guess what - the Senate wouldn't even act on it. They did nothing with it. Is that how Democrats 'compromise'?"
One bill (Senate) was bi-partisan, mainly written by Langford where each side got elements they WANTED. That is the type of bill you can compromise on, because both parties participated in drafting the bill.
The House bill was strictly partisan, with absolutely zero input from any House Dems. There is no way to "change the bill", because it is a partisan bill that passed stricly on party lines. Zero Dems co-sponsored it, and all 211 Dems (and 2 Pubs) voted against it so sending it back to the House would accomplish nothing. The Pubs weren't interested in making any compromise or provisions palatable to House Dems originally, so the only result of the Senate voting it down and then it going back to the House for revisions was a political ploy...
It wasn't a House bill, it was a MAGA bill. If the Pubs weren't willing to make changes to gain a single Dem vote in the House the first time, what changes do you think they'd be willing to make the 2nd time thru the House? Both parties played to the wishes of their constituencies, and since every House member is up for re-election in 2024 and has to face those constituencies both sides approached their response to the bill with that in mind.
The fact that 0 Dems voted for it indicates that is how those Dems felt the voters in their respective districts wanted them to proceed...We'll see whether those voters are motivated more by House Dems voting against HR2, or by Trump killing Langford's bill. We know where you stand...
Yeah, he had to go because Cubans tend to vote more conservative. So we sent the SWAT team in to remove him. If it were 2 million conservative Republican voters a year walking across that border it would have been shut down 40 years ago.
Nothing is better than that law. IIRC, expedited return would be statutorily prohibited in exchange for more processing personnel . While the advocates claim the ‘compromise “stiffened” asylum standards, if you would read the change, you’d see it was just rearranging chairs. It codifies the wrong view of asylum seeker. The law didn’t address incentives, which is a recent policy chanhpge which must be addressed. The main problem is putting stuff in law that would enshrine liberal view of immigration and remove administrative interpretations.
The problem substance is all in the definitions and codification of administrative processes. The shiny objects that attract positive attention are more money for more enforcement and processing speed.
You deal with the patent office, correct?
Don’t you have a client who has developed a portable hair dryer that works in the rain? No more need for a towel with the new, handy-dandy Insta-Dry, two-second hair dryer. No need to carry or wear a towel in public. When finished, the dryer leaves a shield protecting your hair from water for twelve hours.
Who is letting illegal aliens vote? That comes up but evidence lacks.
Univee2, good catch.
Started to comment on my being a right winger but let it ride.
Quite frankly would like to think of myself as a centrist. Or maybe center left.
At any rate like to also think of myself as being open minded which includes listening and respecting those on the right.
Often think putting every political discussion on a right versus left basis is the main cause for the country being divided to such an extent we cannot reach consensus
Started to comment on my being a right winger but let it ride.
Quite frankly would like to think of myself as a centrist. Or maybe center left.
At any rate like to also think of myself as being open minded which includes listening and respecting those on the right.
Often think putting every political discussion on a right versus left basis is the main cause for the country being divided to such an extent we cannot reach consensus.
From the Remain in Mexico decision. Kavanaugh doesn't agree with your perspective.
Kavanaugh noted in a concurring opinion that this means six justices agreed on the merits, and said the court can only do so much to restore order in an immigration crisis brought about by a “stalemate” between Congress and the White House.
“The larger policy story behind this case is the multi-decade inability of the political branches to provide DHS with sufficient facilities to detain noncitizens who seek to enter the United States pending their immigration proceedings,” Kavanaugh wrote. “But this Court has authority to address only the legal issues before us.”
And, conversely, a party that is always over-“compromising” will soon find itself with few adherents. In fact, many will wonder why it even continues to exist.
When the Republican Party is seen by the majority of conservatives as more appropriately the Republican Wing of the Democrat Party, maybe it’s time to question your continued existence.
But a good number of states allow one to apply for a Drivers License, welfare benefits or a voter registration form without proof of US residency. Some illegal aliens are getting the registration. Maybe they’re all not voting, but the opportunity is there. Maybe only several thousand actually vote, around the country, but shouldn’t we tighten things up just a bit?
Nothing wrong with laws to prevent illegal voting. I suggested above we tighten employment where it was illegal, didn't get any comments. We raised chicken processing plants that hired hundreds of illegals. If the companies were fined, their management fined, do you think people would keep doing that?
But we want to punish the poor Brown guy and not the wealthy White guy. Slap those that hired illegally silly and see how fast the message spreads.
A decent summation, but nothing particularly new, and it's from last February. Since then, Biden suddenly found religion and supposedly started implementing Trump-style enforcement policies.DANC, found this commentary piece from a Brookings Institute (center-left source ) contributor which I found interesting about immigration.
Realize the piece can be called another example of media bias. Nevertheless, offer it up for discussion.
The collapse of bipartisan immigration reform: A guide for the perplexed
Brookings Senior Fellow William Galston explains why Republicans failed to support the bipartisan immigration bill.
.
One thing that stands out to me is the 'grand compromise' between Reagan and the Democrats. This is what happens when Republicans 'compromise' on skirting federal law. The go-along-to-get-along style of Republicans, favored by people here like Aloha, always leads to more problems down the road. And they just don't get it. Any Republicans that want to enforce federal law are 'mean' and 'uncaring'.
Feelings are what matter today.
It never passed the Senate. There was nothing for the House to pass or vote down.
Which makes Schumer's ignoring HR2 even more egregious. At least the House passed a bill - why didn't the Senate? They had the votes. Then the House could have voted on it. But no - Democrats are too cowardly to actually tell the public what they want.
