U.S. Republicans, Democrats joust over 'Dreamer' immigration effort

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

And now, once again we have a dem appointed judge thinking he can make federal policy. What a freaking joke the judicial system has become. 

I guess in your mind it's only ok when republican appointed judges overrule the executive branch.

[mikebike]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I guess in your mind it's only ok when republican appointed judges overrule the executive branch.

mrw's comment, and those like it, are truly bizarre. All appointed judges were appointed by one or the other of the two parties. That is why there are layers of appeal. The architects of the system foresaw partisan politics and produced a system which negates much of the partisanship.

[samran]

The great excellent exalted genius orange great negotiator doesn’t know if he is Arthur or Martha on this topic:

 

"What about a clean DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] bill now and a commitment to do comprehensive next?" said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California.

 

Trump responded: "Yeah, I would like to do that. I think a lot of people would like to see that."

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/we-got-a-glimpse-of-donald-trump-negotiating-and-it-didnt-go-well-20180110-h0gg7p.html

 

[ilostmypassword]

13 minutes ago, mikebike said:

mrw's comment, and those like it, are truly bizarre. All appointed judges were appointed by one or the other of the two parties. That is why there are layers of appeal. The architects of the system foresaw partisan politics and produced a system which negates much of the partisanship.

Not so bizarre if you're familiar with Pavlov's work on conditioned reflexes. 

Edited January 11, 2018 by ilostmypassword

[mrwebb8825]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Not so bizarre if you're familiar with Pavlov's work on conditioned reflexes. 

The best you can do is a personal insult?

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, mrwebb8825 said:

The best you can do is a personal insult?

Well, since you're comment was devoid of any evidence and based solely on the fact of who appointed the judge, it seems an accurate diagnosis. Maybe you should try citing evidence that gives some indication of some serious thought that went into its selection.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, mrwebb8825 said:

And now, once again we have a dem appointed judge thinking he can make federal policy. What a freaking joke the judicial system has become. 

And what about the case of Cliven Bundy who was prosecuted unsuccessfuly by the Obama administration but was still being held in jail until a biased Republican judge freed him in a scathing judgement that attacked the Justice department?

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎1‎/‎6‎/‎2018 at 12:40 PM, Ulic said:

Of course, the middle ground is to give Trump the money for his wall and he/the Republican party will pass legislation that allows the dreamers to stay.  Neither side will be happy, but this is a compromise. 

 

 

 

 

That is obviously "the deal" Trump will have to make to get his wall. I watched some Democrat politician try the same lie that they used with Reagan that if the President gives amnesty they will deal with the wall later- and we all know what happened with Reagan. Hopefully Trump will have learned not to trust Democrats and will stand fast; even walk away and let the dreamers be deported if it comes to it.

However, if Trump caves, IMO his base will punish him for it in November by staying away from the polls ( though they may realise that would only hurt themselves by allowing the Dems to get a majority and vote anyway ).

If he doesn't get the wall, I can't see his base supporting his re election though. In other words, getting the wall is vital if he wants to win in 2000, and this is probably his only shot at getting the finance.

 

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That is obviously "the deal" Trump will have to make to get his wall. I watched some Democrat politician try the same lie that they used with Reagan that if the President gives amnesty they will deal with the wall later- and we all know what happened with Reagan. Hopefully Trump will have learned not to trust Democrats and will stand fast; even walk away and let the dreamers be deported if it comes to it.

However, if Trump caves, IMO his base will punish him for it in November by staying away from the polls ( though they may realise that would only hurt themselves by allowing the Dems to get a majority and vote anyway ).

If he doesn't get the wall, I can't see his base supporting his re election though. In other words, getting the wall is vital if he wants to win in 2000, and this is probably his only shot at getting the finance.

 

Thanks for passing on another right wing immigration lie.

"It has become popular for Republican commentators to say Reagan was fooled by Democrats to grant amnesty in exchange for a false promise of tougher border control. But the legislation was pushed by members of both parties and its failure bears bipartisan fingerprints.

"It's revisionist history," said Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. "

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/memory-of-immigration-reform-under-ronald-reagan-haunts-current-debate/1273597

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎1‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 8:44 AM, KMartinHandyman said:

It’s interesting how expats living in a certain southeast Asian country give full support to the draconian immigration procedures and 100% enforcement of immediately expelling and or incarcerating along with bans on re-entry for overstayers yet advocate the United States should make some type of exceptions for people who are found to be in the country without proper “permission to stay”, ie: visa or green card.
I guess “Guests in their country, their rules” doesn’t always apply.

That should be "It’s interesting how SOME expats". I don't support illegal immigration in ANY country. I have to jump through too many hoops and pay too much money to be legally here to agree that anyone can just enter another country illegally ( or overstay ) and get to stay legally for political reasons.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That should be "It’s interesting how SOME expats". I don't support illegal immigration in ANY country. I have to jump through too many hoops and pay too much money to be legally here to agree that anyone can just enter another country illegally ( or overstay ) and get to stay legally for political reasons.

And this despite that fact that your life was in danger had you remained where you were?

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Thanks for passing on another right wing immigration lie.

"It has become popular for Republican commentators to say Reagan was fooled by Democrats to grant amnesty in exchange for a false promise of tougher border control. But the legislation was pushed by members of both parties and its failure bears bipartisan fingerprints.

"It's revisionist history," said Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. "

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/memory-of-immigration-reform-under-ronald-reagan-haunts-current-debate/1273597

If we assume you are correct, then Trump should not trust politicians of any party that want to do DACA amnesty now and the wall later. He's a fool, IMO, if he believes anyone's assurances of "the wall later". He has to tie amnesty to the wall, at least.

I guess we'll be seeing soon if he is a fool, or not.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

And this despite that fact that your life was in danger had you remained where you were?

No, if I were to flee, I'd go to the closest safe country and register as a refugee, which would allow me to remain legally.

 

Anyway, why do you assume I would flee? I am trained for warfare. Why do you write as though I would not stay and fight?

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If we assume you are correct, then Trump should not trust politicians of any party that want to do DACA amnesty now and the wall later. He's a fool, IMO, if he believes anyone's assurances of "the wall later". He has to tie amnesty to the wall, at least.

I guess we'll be seeing soon if he is a fool, or not.

Actually, on the basis of his wall proposal alone, it's clear he is a fool. That is, if he actually cares about illiegal immigration.

To Pay for Wall, Trump Would Cut Proven Border Security Measures

 The Trump administration would cut or delay funding for border surveillance, radar technology, patrol boats and customs agents in its upcoming spending plan to curb illegal immigration — all proven security measures that officials and experts have said are more effective than building a wall along the Mexican border.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/08/us/politics/trump-border-wall-funding-surveillance.html

[ilostmypassword]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No, if I were to flee, I'd go to the closest safe country and register as a refugee, which would allow me to remain legally.

 

Anyway, why do you assume I would flee? I am trained for warfare. Why do you write as though I would not stay and fight?

It's certainly anyone's right to stay, fight and die. But it's also their basic human right not to.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

It's certainly anyone's right to stay, fight and die. But it's also their basic human right not to.

I never said it wasn't. I asked why YOU assume I would FLEE rather than stay and fight. 

Can you answer the question without deflecting?

[samran]

23 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Thanks for passing on another right wing immigration lie.

"It has become popular for Republican commentators to say Reagan was fooled by Democrats to grant amnesty in exchange for a false promise of tougher border control. But the legislation was pushed by members of both parties and its failure bears bipartisan fingerprints.

"It's revisionist history," said Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. "

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/memory-of-immigration-reform-under-ronald-reagan-haunts-current-debate/1273597

 

Indeed, it was GOP orthodoxy once upon a time to be, well humane...

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I never said it wasn't. I asked why YOU assume I would FLEE rather than stay and fight. 

Can you answer the question without deflecting?

The question was obviously asked to illuminate a point. That you take it personally is bizarre and a little bit sad.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

The question was obviously asked to illuminate a point. That you take it personally is bizarre and a little bit sad.

Yes, I take it personally when you made it personal. How about dealing with the subject of the OP and not trying to bring me into it?

[lannarebirth]

30 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Thanks for passing on another right wing immigration lie.

"It has become popular for Republican commentators to say Reagan was fooled by Democrats to grant amnesty in exchange for a false promise of tougher border control. But the legislation was pushed by members of both parties and its failure bears bipartisan fingerprints.

"It's revisionist history," said Demetrios Papademetriou, president of the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute. "

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/national/memory-of-immigration-reform-under-ronald-reagan-haunts-current-debate/1273597

 

The reason the legislation is pushed by both parties has nothing to do with the so called "Dreamers" and everything to do with their corporate donors.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/over-100-business-leaders-warn-congress-fix-daca-january-19-or-else-2018-1

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Yes, I take it personally when you made it personal. How about dealing with the subject of the OP and not trying to bring me into it?

Actually my comment was a response to this one of yours:

" I have to jump through too many hoops and pay too much money to be legally here to agree that anyone can just enter another country illegally ( or overstay ) and get to stay legally for political reasons."

In other words, you're the one who made it personal. So "How about dealing with the subject of the OP and not trying to bring" yourself "into it?"

[thaibeachlovers]

11 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Actually my comment was a response to this one of yours:

" I have to jump through too many hoops and pay too much money to be legally here to agree that anyone can just enter another country illegally ( or overstay ) and get to stay legally for political reasons."

In other words, you're the one who made it personal. So "How about dealing with the subject of the OP and not trying to bring" yourself "into it?"

This is going to be my final response to this nonsense.

I did not try and bring YOU into it on a personal level, so how about not making personal comments about OTHER posters on TVF. I have no problem with YOU talking about YOURSELF on the forum if you choose to do so.

 

Do not expect another response to you on this thread that involves something you made personal about me.

[ilostmypassword]

14 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

This is going to be my final response to this nonsense.

I did not try and bring YOU into it on a personal level, so how about not making personal comments about OTHER posters on TVF. I have no problem with YOU talking about YOURSELF on the forum if you choose to do so.

 

Do not expect another response to you on this thread that involves something you made personal about me.

This is an open forum. If you're going to cite yourself as evidence, be prepared for comment on it.

[Scott]

I strongly suggest you get back on topic and stay there.  

[riclag]

13 hours ago, samran said:

The great excellent exalted genius orange great negotiator doesn’t know if he is Arthur or Martha on this topic:

 

"What about a clean DACA [Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals] bill now and a commitment to do comprehensive next?" said Senator Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat from California.

 

Trump responded: "Yeah, I would like to do that. I think a lot of people would like to see that."

 

http://www.smh.com.au/world/we-got-a-glimpse-of-donald-trump-negotiating-and-it-didnt-go-well-20180110-h0gg7p.html

 

What's your point did you watch the 55 minutes of transparency? I did! He didn't know about the ("Clean"  A clean Dream Act means: • NO funding for a border wall and increased border security). ,he thought she was only referring to DACA(pathway for illegal young immigrants  to U.S. citizenship).

Thanks for your comment