The President Trump Immigration Thread

[bwframe]

I hear Kamala is your champion for 2018/2020. "The next Elizabeth Warren"

Id totally vote for the Ebony and Ivory 2020 ticket...

That is totally no shock to anyone who has ever followed the politics forums on INGO. We already knew how you have voted and how you will vote sir.

 

[Kutnupe14]

That is totally no shock to anyone who has ever followed the politics forums on INGO. We already knew how you have voted and how you will vote sir.

Well why bring it up if it's so obvious?... oh right, some like to troll.

 

[bwframe]

...some like to troll.

So true...

 

[jamil]

I learned today, that the average dreamer arrived here at age six. In order to qualify for DACA, they had to have graduated from high school, and have no criminal record. They are also not a drain on our social welfare benefits, as they are not able to use them. Further, DACAs in the US military, are subject to deportion. Can you imagine the WTF look, a guy who has served overseas, putting his/her life on the line, will have if they're deported? DACAs, as a group, are more law-abiding, less burdensome, and more arguably more patriotic than your average US citizen. They should be the LAST people we're looking to deport.

Some apparent inaccuracies notwithstanding, you're not making a very good case to circumvent immigration law. You are making a good case to change it though. But other interests get a say too. That's how representative democracies work. Ideologically motivated presidents signing executive orders to make laws isn't a very permanent solution, now is it?

 

[OakRiver]

It becomes apparent that H2-B workers, at least in this case, are hired at lower than the "prevailing" wage in order to undercut the competition and price them out of the market if they also don't use H2-B workers on the cheap. If it truly was a "labor shortage", the wage would be the prevailing wage (or higher to pull the workers away from others).

That's interesting, especially in light of this; https://www.uscis.gov/working-unite...rkers/h-2b-temporary-non-agricultural-workers

"There are not enough U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to do the temporary work.Employing H-2B workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers."

 

[OakRiver]

I learned today, that the average dreamer arrived here at age six. In order to qualify for DACA, they had to have graduated from high school, and have no criminal record. They are also not a drain on our social welfare benefits, as they are not able to use them.

Except those who previously used the SSNs of citizens to apply for jobs/credit/housing etc. to claim Federal benefits. Except for State programs offering assistance to illegal immigrants funded by tax payers.

Further, DACAs in the US military, are subject to deportion. Can you imagine the WTF look, a guy who has served overseas, putting his/her life on the line, will have if they're deported?

There is already a provision for these individuals; https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/naturalization-through-military-service-fact-sheet

DACAs, as a group, are more law-abiding, less burdensome, and more arguably more patriotic than your average US citizen. They should be the LAST people we're looking to deport.

Citation needed

 

[IndyDave1776]

Except those who previously used the SSNs of citizens to apply for jobs/credit/housing etc. to claim Federal benefits. Except for State programs offering assistance to illegal immigrants funded by tax payers.



There is already a provision for these individuals; https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/naturalization-through-military-service-fact-sheet



Citation needed

I think this is as good as you are going to get:

 

[Twangbanger]

This whole issue is a disingenuous fustercluck. Democrats were willing to let the Dream Act die in 2010, when they controlled everything, rather than incorporate border-security measures. Now they want to use the sympathetic optics of the Dreamer issue as a stalking-horse for legalizing other categories of people whose circumstances are not so sympathetic. Democrats think they have a winning political issue here. The Dreamers are a political football, and Obama's Executive Order was designed to pump more air molecules into that football.

All that happened today is Trump turned off the air pump.

 

[Alpo]

I think this is as good as you are going to get:

That was a great car! I had one with studded snow tires that could outclimb most 4wd's when I lived in Colorado. She wasn't pretty, but it did perform!

 

[OakRiver]

This whole issue is a disingenuous fustercluck. Democrats were willing to let the Dream Act die in 2010, when they controlled everything, rather than incorporate border-security measures. Now they want to use the sympathetic optics of the Dreamer issue as a stalking-horse for legalizing other categories of people whose circumstances are not so sympathetic. Democrats think they have a winning political issue here. The Dreamers are a political football, and Obama's Executive Order was designed to pump more air molecules into that football.

All that happened today is Trump turned off the air pump.

Trump called their bluff, and now the Democrats are learning the limits of executive power after depending on it for so long - especially when the DREAM Act was defeated. Trump has put the ball firmly back in the legislative branch's court, where it always belonged.

It's interesting that these people, with no rightful claim to be in this country, are lauded as Americans by the likes of our former POTUS and VP - especially when they were unable to pass sympathetic legislation when they had a majority

 

[Kutnupe14]

Except those who previously used the SSNs of citizens to apply for jobs/credit/housing etc. to claim Federal benefits. Except for State programs offering assistance to illegal immigrants funded by tax payers.



There is already a provision for these individuals; https://www.uscis.gov/news/fact-sheets/naturalization-through-military-service-fact-sheet



Citation needed

Not clear if you understand what "no criminal record means."

Edit: apparently, I need a define arguably too.

 

[OakRiver]

Not clear if you understand what "no criminal record means."

I'm pretty sure I understood what you wrote, I'm not sure the needless snark adds anything to the topic though. It is possible for DREAMers to have broken the law, like residing in a country illegally or using another's SSN, but not yet have a criminal record.At some point these individuals made an improper entry into the United States by either crossing the border in a place other than designated by US officials or concealing a material fact about their intentions to violate their permissions to temporarily enter the country. They are in violation of criminal law, they just have not been punished for it yet. Even if I secede the point and say that illegal immigrants are just unlawfully present, which is a civil law offense, for any other class of immigrant breaking immigration law is ground for removal and potentially permanent exclusion.


Then we have our former POTUS appearing on TV and encouraging DREAMers to register for the election and vote too. Any that followed this advice were also acting outside the law.

Edit: apparently, I need a define arguably too.

If you want to make an argument for something you must have some evidence that you used to reach that conclusion. What was that evidence?

 

[jamil]

I'm pretty sure I understood what you wrote, I'm not sure the needless snark adds anything to the topic though. It is possible for DREAMers to have broken the law, like residing in a country illegally or using another's SSN, but not yet have a criminal record.At some point these individuals made an improper entry into the United States by either crossing the border in a place other than designated by US officials or concealing a material fact about their intentions to violate their permissions to temporarily enter the country. They are in violation of criminal law, they just have not been punished for it yet. Even if I secede the point and say that illegal immigrants are just unlawfully present, which is a civil law offense, for any other class of immigrant breaking immigration law is ground for removal and potentially permanent exclusion.


Then we have our former POTUS appearing on TV and encouraging DREAMers to register for the election and vote too. Any that followed this advice were also acting outside the law.


If you want to make an argument for something you must have some evidence that you used to reach that conclusion. What was that evidence?

The needless snark doesn't add anything to the topic. I suspect the needless snark IS the topic.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I'm pretty sure I understood what you wrote, I'm not sure the needless snark adds anything to the topic though. It is possible for DREAMers to have broken the law, like residing in a country illegally or using another's SSN, but not yet have a criminal record.At some point these individuals made an improper entry into the United States by either crossing the border in a place other than designated by US officials or concealing a material fact about their intentions to violate their permissions to temporarily enter the country. They are in violation of criminal law, they just have not been punished for it yet. Even if I secede the point and say that illegal immigrants are just unlawfully present, which is a civil law offense, for any other class of immigrant breaking immigration law is ground for removal and potentially permanent exclusion.


Then we have our former POTUS appearing on TV and encouraging DREAMers to register for the election and vote too. Any that followed this advice were also acting outside the law.


If you want to make an argument for something you must have some evidence that you used to reach that conclusion. What was that evidence?

"no criminal record" = not convicted of a crime, not that a person has never committed a crime. If you have something that you want to illustrate besides a "maybe/possibly/might" feel free to inform.

"arguably" open to argument, up for debate. If you have another definition, that makes mine false, again, feel free to inform.

As far as the former POTUS encouraging Dreamers to vote, that is demonstrably false to anyone who listened to the entire interview with intellectual honesty.

 

[OakRiver]

Kutnupe, it is interesting that you are fixing your response to me based on what I was not highlighting. I highlighted your claim that "They are also not a drain on our social welfare benefits", your efforts to shift the discussion are a distraction.

Again, open to argument means that you have something that lead you to take your position. What was that? What makes you think that DREAMers are"more law-abiding, less burdensome, and more arguably more patriotic than your average US citizen."?

https://cis.org/Mortensen/DACA-Gran...mitting-Crimes-While-Abandoning-Their-Victims
https://cis.org/Mortensen/ACLU-NYT-La-Raza-All-Agree-75-Illegal-Aliens-Are-Committing-Felonies

"Demonstrably false" that the former POTUS encouraged illegal voting. Except when you listen to his own words;
[video=youtube;WCLO0WBvhF8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCLO0WBvhF8[/video]

 

[jamil]

About Obama encouraging illegals to vote...

It's not Obama's words that make people think that. It's the inferred context. It's the way that the question was framed that causes that context to be understood by the listeners. Why did she include "undocumented citizens" in the set of Latino citizens who were afraid to vote? Well, to me, I think it was a virtue signaling nod to illegals more than actually including them in people who shouldn't be affraid to vote. But, subtract that part from her question, and you'll have a much more difficult time inferring that Obama was trying to tacitly encourage illegals to vote.

So that leaves us with how Obama understood her question. Let's look at the full context.

RODRIGUEZ: Many of the millennials, Dreamers, undocumented citizens — and I call them citizens because they contribute to this country — are fearful of voting. So if I vote, will immigration know where I live? Will they come for my family and deport us?


OBAMA: Not true. And the reason is, first of all, when you vote, you are a citizen yourself. And there is not a situation where the voting rolls somehow are transferred over and people start investigating, et cetera. The sanctity of the vote is strictly confidential in terms of who you voted for. If you have a family member who maybe is undocumented, then you have an even greater reason to vote.


RODRIGUEZ: This has been a huge fear presented especially during this election.


OBAMA: And the reason that fear is promoted is because they don’t want people voting. People are discouraged from voting and part of what is important for Latino citizens is to make your voice heard, because you’re not just speaking for yourself. You’re speaking for family members, friends, classmates of yours in school…


RODRIGUEZ: Your entire community.


OBAMA: … who may not have a voice. Who can’t legally vote. But they’re counting on you to make sure that you have the courage to make your voice heard.

​

If you take her words most literally, she is definately including illegals as these voters who are afraid to vote for fear of deportation. But in conversation people don't say things the way they mean them. Often the context is in our own heads and we say things as if the listeners already understand the context within our own heads. Trump, for example does this a lot, and it often gets him into trouble with those who are too eager to find troublesome statements. It's easiest for others to take our words out of context when we don't provide enough in the first place.

I suspect this is what she did. I'm not convinced that she meant to frame the question that way. I also think Obama understood this and responded in a way to sort of help her out without having to correct her. I've seen him do this with other interviews too.

He made it clear that illegals can't vote, but he could have made it clearer that he's not tacitly encouraging them to vote. But bottom line, I don't think that was his intention. I don't think he was trying to tacitly encourage illegals to vote. But I do think he used calculated language to not *discourage* them. What politician doesn't want all the votes they can get regardless of where they come from? People get pissed at Trump for the same thing. Sure. White supremacists are poopy. But they're votes. Illegals voting is poopy--and illegal. But they're votes as long as they don't get caught. I doubt Obama would have fought to have illegal votes stricken from HIS tally.

 

[bwframe]

[video=youtube;IQuGoy3qWkE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQuGoy3qWkE[/video]

 

[KLB]

[video=youtube;IQuGoy3qWkE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQuGoy3qWkE[/video]

Where did they get that title from what Rahm said?

 

[OakRiver]

The "Trump free zone" at 34 seconds?

Interesting, at 55 seconds into the video Rahm mentions a specific State welfare program for free education (contingent on a B average) funded by the taxpayer. I was sure that earlier in this very thread we were told that DREAMers "are also not a drain on our social welfare benefits, as they are not able to use them."

 

[KLB]

The "Trump free zone" at 34 seconds?

Interesting, at 55 seconds into the video Rahm mentions a specific State welfare program for free education (contingent on a B average) funded by the taxpayer. I was sure that earlier in this very thread we were told that DREAMers "are also not a drain on our social welfare benefits, as they are not able to use them."

That isn't banning Trump from Chicago.

Rahm is a moron. He also called for the state of Illinois, which is so deep in debt already to increase funding for programs like Chicago's.