17 minutes ago, TEW said:

 The difference is one side isn’t deliberately trying to dilute American citizen’s voting power by importing a new electorate. In any other time in history this would be considered beyond treason and the people attempting to do this would be decapitated in the town square.

 

 

true, the one side is trying to dilute american citizen's voting power by trying to steal a legal and certified election by assembling fraud electors & storming the capitol. 

1 minute ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

true, the one side is trying to dilute american citizen's voting power by trying to steal a legal and certified election by assembling fraud electors & storming the capitol. 

Fake news, all of the J6 protestors were FBI informants. 

6 minutes ago, Gannan said:

The dreamers are people who haven't lived in another country. It would be cruel to take someone who is in their 20's who has never been to Columbia, and deport them to Columbia. So for me a common ground would be to let those people stay and deport everyone who has come illegally in the last 2 years and put a policy in place that they have to apply for asylum in their home country or closest adjacent country. Then seal the border. They cannot be allowed to stay here while they wait for their case to be heard. It won't happen though. Both parties just want to use it as a political football. 

And then it becomes a never ending cycle of illegal aliens coming here with young kids because they know you won’t deport their kids.

No.

It may be cruel, but this needs to end, and as long as you keep making exceptions you incentivize people to exploit those exceptions.

6 minutes ago, TEW said:

And then it becomes a never ending cycle of illegal aliens coming here with young kids because they know you won’t deport their kids.

No.

It may be cruel, but this needs to end, and as long as you keep making exceptions you incentivize people to exploit those exceptions.

I meant just a one time exemption for the ones already here from back in the 90's and the early 2000's. I agree that you can't keep letting them come in. Most of the Dreamers are working productive members of society. Im talking about the ones flooding in now just milling around the streets of NYC and El Paso. Like I said, its almost not even worth arguing about it because they arent going to do anything about it. Should Trump win, he will put a band aid on it but it wont be solved. 

2 minutes ago, Gannan said:

I meant just a one time exemption for the ones already here from back in the 90's and the early 2000's. I agree that you can't keep letting them come in. Most of the Dreamers are working productive members of society. Im talking about the ones flooding in now just milling around the streets of NYC and El Paso. Like I said, its almost not even worth arguing about it because they arent going to do anything about it. Should Trump win, he will put a band aid on it but it wont be solved. 

the wall solve everything, even hurricanes. 

Seems to me that the anti illegal immigration crowd will only be satisfied if and when the number is brought to zero. Anything less than that, isn't good enough.

Anywho, I'll just sit back watch. It's getting good.

15 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Seems to me that the anti illegal immigration crowd will only be satisfied if and when the number is brought to zero. Anything less than that, isn't good enough.

Anywho, I'll just sit back watch. It's getting good.

If by good you mean multiple cities have to declare emergencies to deal with hordes of illegals and taxpayers are having to foot billions of dollars in housing and other handouts, then yeah it's getting good. 

4 hours ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Dreamers are a special carve-out IMHO. They are people who have lived their entire lives in the United States.

Giving them a path to citizenship isn't the same as just giving them the vote. They still have steps they need to take to qualify for citizenship. 

2nd and 3rd generation immigrants from Central and South America fully integrate into the US culturally, and both parties have opportunity to court those citizens. We're a nation that is facing a looming labor crisis as boomers retire and longer term issues with birth rate, this anti-immigration stance makes very little sense to me. It's literally a solution to a real problem. 

Immigrants tend to be much more upwardly mobile than "native-born" Americans, more likely to be entrepreneurs and run small businesses. 

Turning away a gift seems backwards thinking. 

I agree that Dreamers are a special carve out.  Schumer wasn’t just talking about Dreamers though. 

Also, being against illegal immigration isn’t an anti immigration stance.  Being against giving people asylum status that don’t actually meet asylum seeker status isn’t anti immigration.

I also am finding it comical to see leaders in liberal cities like New York now saying the same exact things they were claiming were "racist” and "xenophobic” to say just mere months ago.  Turns out they’re "let them in!” Stance was actually "let them in so long as you keep them out of our state and we don’t have to deal with them!”

51 minutes ago, Gannan said:

At this point even Trump's "wait in Mexico" makes more sense than letting them flood the streets of major metropolitan areas. 

Remain in Mexico was in place until August 2022. The influx of migrants was still way up. 

The only longish term fix is to get these nations to suck less. And I'm not sure how that happens without more significant agreements, aid, and probably outlays. 

I don't know enough about the intricate details of the asylum system to understand what reforms are needed there. 

For all the hand wringing I don't see any good faith effort on immigration coming out of Washington. Nothing even close since 2007. Obama tried but Republicans weren't even close to playing ball. 

Anything practical is deemed DOA for Republicans because any actionable solution is gonna require a path to immigration for some group. Republicans wouldn't even budge on DREAMers, resulting in the DACA EO.

Compromise is a dirty word on the right, any daylight given in it's name is considered giving Democrats "a win". And since Clinton triangulated Newt the right just won't. Not on anything big.

58 minutes ago, TEW said:

And then it becomes a never ending cycle of illegal aliens coming here with young kids because they know you won’t deport their kids.

No.

It may be cruel, but this needs to end, and as long as you keep making exceptions you incentivize people to exploit those exceptions.

See. This is why nothing gets done. Because compromise is a dirty word for people like TEW.

31 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

See. This is why nothing gets done. Because compromise is a dirty word for people like TEW.

It's also why they've gone full force into authoritarianism.  They're not willing to compromise and aren't allowed to by their voters (really it's their media but we'll call it their voters) but they still want all of their agenda to get through.  Since the Constitution makes that impossible without compromise, doing away with it is the only path they have left.

12 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

It's also why they've got full force into authoritarianism.  They're not willing to compromise and aren't allowed to by their voters (really it's their media but we'll call it their voters) but they still want all of their agenda to get through.  Since the Constitution makes that impossible without compromise, doing away with it is the only path they have left.

Oh sure, bring up the wisdom behind the Constitution. 

But what if TEW and his ilk really really really think they're right and will throw a temper tantrum if they don't get what they want? The forefathers never considered that did they? 

1 hour ago, TEW said:

In any other time in history this would be considered beyond treason and the people attempting to do this would be decapitated in the town square.

 

Well no.  We literally did it in the 80s, and as far as I’m aware is the only time in modern history that we gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.

And the party that claims to be against illegal immigration is the party that the president who signed that legislation belonged to. And the same people who claim to be against illegals immigration defend the move.

So I never see this actually getting solved.  People care more about partisan politics than solving the problem.

1 minute ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Well no.  We literally did it in the 80s, and as far as I’m aware is the only time in modern history that we gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.

And the party that claims to be against illegal immigration is the party that the president who signed that legislation belonged to. And the same people who claim to be against illegals immigration defend the move.

So I never see this actually getting solved.  People care more about partisan politics than solving the problem.

Something, something, Dems made a promise, something, something, Reagan was duped, something, something, Dems are evil, something, something, bow your head and pray to St. Ronny...

4 hours ago, Gannan said:

I meant just a one time exemption for the ones already here from back in the 90's and the early 2000's. I agree that you can't keep letting them come in. Most of the Dreamers are working productive members of society. Im talking about the ones flooding in now just milling around the streets of NYC and El Paso. Like I said, its almost not even worth arguing about it because they arent going to do anything about it. Should Trump win, he will put a band aid on it but it wont be solved. 

It’s never a 1 time exemption. That’s the problem. We did the amnesty thing under Reagan and that was supposed to be the last time. Yet here we are.

I agree that it sucks for people who were brought here as young children and don’t know anything else but living here. It’s not their fault. It’s their parents fault for breaking the law and our fault for not taking this issue seriously deporting them sooner.

But enough is enough. No one will ever want to be the person who is mean or cruel. You say this is the last time, then 20 years from now some politician will say this is the last time, and on and on it will go because illegals will correctly see that we don’t have the political will to throw them out.

Until you start physically removing illegal aliens from the country by the millions, with no exceptions, it will continue. No more kicking the can down the road on tough issues. 

3 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Well no.  We literally did it in the 80s, and as far as I’m aware is the only time in modern history that we gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants.

And the party that claims to be against illegal immigration is the party that the president who signed that legislation belonged to. And the same people who claim to be against illegals immigration defend the move.

So I never see this actually getting solved.  People care more about partisan politics than solving the problem.

I don’t defend the move at all, it was stupid because Democrats are scumbags and their end game was always to flood the country with a new electorate. Reagan just didn’t appreciate that Democrats are scumbags and completely untrustworthy.

If we are being honest and fair, this was signed by Reagan with the understanding that it would be the only time and that the border would get secured.

Yet here we are and the democrats are trying to do it again.

So, yeah, it’s a partisan issue.

3 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

Something, something, Dems made a promise, something, something, Reagan was duped, something, something, Dems are evil, something, something, bow your head and pray to St. Ronny...

Unironically this.

18 minutes ago, TEW said:

No one will ever want to be the person who is mean or cruel.

This MF'er just woke up from a 7yr coma.

3 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

Something, something, Dems made a promise, something, something, Reagan was duped, something, something, Dems are evil, something, something, bow your head and pray to St. Ronny...

Like clockwork. We don't call them trumpbots for nothing.

23 minutes ago, TEW said:

Unironically this.

Unironically, President’s take the blame or get the credit for the bills they sign. Dems deal with lying, bad faith Republican congresses every term, but if they sign the bill on their desk, it’s there’s. Reagan gave amnesty to millions. Full stop. 

12 hours ago, TEW said:

I don’t defend the move at all, it was stupid because Democrats are scumbags and their end game was always to flood the country with a new electorate. Reagan just didn’t appreciate that Democrats are scumbags and completely untrustworthy.

If we are being honest and fair, this was signed by Reagan with the understanding that it would be the only time and that the border would get secured.

Yet here we are and the democrats are trying to do it again.

So, yeah, it’s a partisan issue.

I’m not saying you personally defend the move. I’m saying republicans in general do when I bring it up to them.  
 

"If we are being honest and fair, this was signed by Reagan with the understanding that it would be the only time and that the border would get secured.”

Stop.  No that’s not being fair nor honest.  There was no understanding that the border would be "secured”, because neither party was truly interested in that.  For that to happen, that bill would have also included extremely harsh penalties for any company that hired illegal immigrants which would dis-incentivize companies from doing that, which would take away the incentive for people to come to the country illegally in the first place.  
 

Immigration as a whole may be a somewhat complex issue, but stopping illegal border crossings is actually somewhat simple IMO.

Remove the incentives for people to come to the country illegally.  That’s been the answer for the past 50+ years but our politicians (on BOTH sides of the aisle) have never shown an interest in doing it.

People would typically come here illegally because they knew they could find jobs and a standard of living that were better than their home country.  And this would also allow them to send cash back to relatives in their home country, earning more money here than they would have working in their home country.

If there weren’t jobs for them, they wouldn’t come.  Not to mention additional benefits they can tap into (such as their children attending public school here, essentially free healthcare thanks to EMTALA (another Reagan initiative).
We now face additional issues with people overstaying visas (which if I recall correctly account for about half of the illegal immigrants in this country).  So it’s no longer now just an illegal crossing issue.

What I find interesting is that the Maga crowd acts like illegal entry in the U.S. is a Serious crime or Felony akin to bank robbery or murder, but it's not. 

It's a Misdemeanor for a first time crossing. Yet Maga wants to Execute illegal aliens for it.

A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, up to six months in prison, or both. 

12 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

Unironically, President’s take the blame or get the credit for the bills they sign. Dems deal with lying, bad faith Republican congresses every term, but if they sign the bill on their desk, it’s there’s. Reagan gave amnesty to millions. Full stop. 

He doesn't recognize that. He blames Dems for lying and backing out on a deal they made instead. He finds no fault at all over Republicans handling of Illegal immigration throughout history. None at all.

Ya guys, I'm starting to think that the dude who said Donald J Trump had a 90th percentile IQ might not be the most politically objective person on here.