Who are you going to blame once the GOP implodes and is no longer politically relevant?
Who are you going to blame once the GOP implodes and is no longer politically relevant?It's anybody's fault other than the perps, the GOP.
The Democrats have been trying to enact comprehensive immigration reform for quite a long time now. Republicans aren't interested in fixing the problem. As for why immigrants tend to vote for Democrats, Hispanic immigrants in particular, it's not exactly a mystery. One of America's two primary political parties is explicitly hostile and racist towards them. Perhaps not shockingly, people don't like that.
If Republicans are interested in appealing to Hispanic immigrants and such I imagine the first step might not be to nominate and vote for a president who calls them rapists and then pledges to build a pointless border wall using their money.
Fuck you, it was temporary, they knew it, you knew it, everyone knew and agreed to it, No you want it changed cause *sniff sniff* it's so unfair! *sniff wah, wah wah*Yeh, tossing out 200K people who've been here over 10 years makes a whole lot of sense, right?
Only for the "Make America White Again" crowd, obviously. How many American citizen children do you figure will get screwed by that, anyway?
Who are you going to blame once the GOP implodes and is no longer politically relevant?
Fuck you, it was temporary, they knew it, you knew it, everyone knew and agreed to it, No you want it changed cause *sniff sniff* it's so unfair! *sniff wah, wah wah*
Immigrants have always overwhelmingly voted for the more liberal party since the founding of the nation, even when immigrants were almost 100% white and overwhelmingly English protestant themselves, the majority voted for the Democratic-Republicans over the Federalist party. So your theory regarding racism, all I have to say is, correlation does not mean causation.
So what's phase 2 of this cunning plan? Cheap exploitable labor is a drug America will not easily surrender, as it impacts everything from produce prices to housekeepers and nannies for dual income households.So, you're projecting future outcome on the basis of... thin air, right? They're just as bad? What?
If it were up to Dems, we'd extend amnesty & eventual citizenship to dreamers & green card amnesty to millions more who've made this country their home. We'd also agree to greater border security not including a stupid wall from the Gulf of Mexico to California.
So what's phase 2 of this cunning plan? Cheap exploitable labor is a drug America will not easily surrender, as it impacts everything from produce prices to housekeepers and nannies for dual income households.
So let's assume we grant amnesty tor a path to citizenship for those here illegally, which allows them to step out of the shadows and organize to demand things like livable wages.
What's to stem the inevitable demand for the next wave of exploitable labor, at a time when automation is projected to deplete and dimish the demand for those very types of workers?
Enhanced border security sounds a lot like extreme vettingWhat part of enhanced border security do you fail to understand?
I just want to know one thing - when are we going to BUILD A WALL?!
Enhanced border security sounds a lot like extreme vetting
You didn't read the article I linked.For someone who claims to care about history you seem awfully ignorant of the details the senate immigration reform bill, that passed, contained.
Besides more border security, the bill also included thinks like a mandatory use of e-verify and penalties for businesses that don't comply.
"Amnesty" would only come once things like border security and other safe guards were actually in place. "Amnesty" would have also required fines to be paid and a "back of the line" policy.
You didn't read the article I linked.
In that article, literally in the first paragraph, it mentions that the immigration reform of '86 was meant to include safeguards as part of the amnesty compromise. The amnesty component certainly moved forward but the safeguards never went into place. That is why most consider that go at immigration reform a failure.
I am well aware that the last go around included e-verify, business penalties, enhanced border security and the likes. I am also aware that previous attempts to include such safeguards never came to fruition, so it is reasonable to be skeptical.
I am also aware that two Republican Presidents, Reagan and Bush, championed an amnesty based approach to immigation reform, and failed the same as Clinton and Obama. Trump is the first President in recent history to take a hardline stance, although its hard to make sense of what his stance truly is because it changes daily.
You are cherry picking arbitrary dates to back up your claim, and completely ignoring the reality of the past.
Link doesn't work, what's the title of the article?The safe guards in the Reagan amnesty deal were effectively non existent and well documented.
Learn something instead of spouting bullshit, tired talking points.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...b58f43c191a_story.html?utm_term=.19a744776df9
You also really need to work on your reading comprehension as I acknowledged the failures of both sides in the past but unlike you I recognize the new reality and the undemocratic nature of the current Republican party.
You already have Felix. Your wall is unassailable, tall enough to be a tomb. Sleep easy sweet prince.I just want to know one thing - when are we going to BUILD A WALL?!
I just want to know one thing - when are we going to BUILD A WALL?!
Here’s one thing even Republicans negotiating an immigration deal agree on: Trump aide Stephen Miller is hurting their chances of getting anything done.
They blame him for insisting the administration gets approval for an unrealistic number of immigration policies in exchange for protections for young people brought into the country illegally as children. They loathe his intensity when delivering his hardline views. And they accuse him of coordinating with outside advocacy groups that oppose their efforts.
“It's no secret that he’s an obstacle to getting anything done on immigration,” said a Republican House member involved in the immigration talks.
Many people involved in the immigration debate — Republicans and Democrats, Capitol Hill staffers and activists — complain that Miller is making already tough negotiations more difficult, according to 14 people familiar with the situation, half involved in negotiations. Most spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the president’s aide.
The House Republican lawmaker said it’s widely viewed that “to move past the speed bumps, there’s no option but to kind of get him out of the way.”
Some Republicans say Miller has tried to poison the deal with policies he knows will never survive a vote in the Senate, where Republicans hold a slim majority and are constantly searching for Democratic votes. “He’s trying to craft a deal he knows is not viable because he doesn’t want a deal,” said a Republican strategist who has long sought an immigration overhaul.
In December, the White House invited Republican lawmakers from both chambers to a series of meetings to talk about a possible deal on Dreamers and border security. Miller was there, though many lawmakers didn’t want him to be. Chief of Staff John Kelly and Marc Short, director of legislative affairs, also attended meetings.
But when Miller spoke, he was met with silence with no one knowing just what to say, according to three familiar with the meetings.
“There’s nothing warm and fuzzy about Stephen,” said a former Trump adviser, who worked with Miller and is in close contact with the White Hous
A political operative who works closely with congressional Republicans said Trump can either listen to Miller or he can decide he wants to work with both parties on a deal that will protect Dreamers and increase security, satisfying most Americans. “The president could have had a deal months ago,” the operative said. “He’s actively undermining the president.”
This sounds like it is good news, but not sure if it's too good to be true. (Supreme court may overrule it?)Per Reuters a judge issued a pre-trial injunction preventing the administration from rescinding DACA.
Sure that will generate a tweet or two.
I just want to know one thing - when are we going to BUILD A WALL?!
I wish I could find it (at work, time is available here and there to search), Ann Coulter had a few good comments how it was obvious the left needed another term or two of Obama-like leadership to essentially turn the US in to California as far as voting goes.
In other words you lied when the law was passed, you lied when it was extended and you want to lie again. It's for a good reason though right ?Yeh, fuck those American kids! Fuck 'em all! Make America White Again!
When did you think that a Republican House was virtually guaranteed at mid-terms? Usually the opposing party picks up substantial gains during mid-terms. I've always though that the House was 50-50, but because of the way the States in the Senate elections fell it looks good for Republicans in 2018.I submit the Republican party has had more worries since Trump than with Obama. The makeup of Congress was thought to virtually guaranteed in this year's midterms to be in favor of Republicans and that is now problematic. Subsequent to Republican actions more people are looking at the status quo of politics which I submit has an impact on the status of states and gerrymandering. NC has been recognized as an egregious case, and now something will be done about it.
This has not been a good time for Republicans in important ways. Except for the chronic faithful, their credibility is diminished, their President is considered to be the least favored in modern history and perhaps beyond. The reddest state, Alabama has a Democratic senator, because of the enormity of Roy Moore at his rotten innermost being.
The Democrats need do very little except not be like the Republicans in the short term and more changes in the perceptions of America have happened since January of last year than in any comparable time in any Presidency I can remember.