The President Trump Immigration Thread

[indiucky]

Those who come here illegally spit in the faces of those seeking to emigrate the LONG, SLOW, HARD WAY... legally.

My wife's parents immigrated here from Argentina in the 1960's.....When I will be opining on the subject of illegal immigration someone will inevitably say, "But your wife's Latin???? How can you be for this?"

Then I sick my wife on them....

"Do you want to know what my parents went through to become citizen's of this country?????? Why in the $#@# should somebody else get a free pass when we did it the right way???? My father kisses the &*&**** ground of this land every time he comes home...That's right HOME!!! The United ******* States of America..."

I just don't have her eloquence and tact on the subject...

 

[SheepDog4Life]

My wife's parents immigrated here from Argentina in the 1960's.....When I will be opining on the subject of illegal immigration someone will inevitably say, "But your wife's Latin???? How can you be for this?"

Then I sick my wife on them....

"Do you want to know what my parents went through to become citizen's of this country?????? Why in the $#@# should somebody else get a free pass when we did it the right way???? My father kisses the &*&**** ground of this land every time he comes home...That's right HOME!!! The United ******* States of America..."

I just don't have her eloquence and tact on the subject...

While I wouldn't claim that such feelings are universal for those who immigrated legally, among those I know, it is... and her eloquence spills through!

And, I would love to see the looks on their faces, lol!

 

[bwframe]

My wife's parents immigrated here from Argentina in the 1960's.....When I will be opining on the subject of illegal immigration someone will inevitably say, "But your wife's Latin???? How can you be for this?"

Then I sick my wife on them....

"Do you want to know what my parents went through to become citizen's of this country?????? Why in the $#@# should somebody else get a free pass when we did it the right way???? My father kisses the &*&**** ground of this land every time he comes home...That's right HOME!!! The United ******* States of America..."

I just don't have her eloquence and tact on the subject...

Like a lot of other folks in your same circumstance, you guys just aren't loud enough to be heard. You have silly things like employment and responsibility in the way of getting out your message.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Like a lot of other folks in your same circumstance, you guys just aren't loud enough to be heard. You have silly things like employment and responsibility in the way of getting out your message.

 

[jamil]

Like a lot of other folks in your same circumstance, you guys just aren't loud enough to be heard. You have silly things like employment and responsibility in the way of getting out your message.

That's not really what's getting in the way. Their stories are not conducive to the desired establishment utopia/status quo. Too many on both sides have things to lose if we make immigration policy what it needs to be. The left loses a very good political [STRIKE]wedge issue[/STRIKE] cash cow, and the right loses the support of the chamber-o-commerce wing of the party who wants the cheap labor. Fix immigration policy and it ceases to be the wedge issue to pander support, fix immigration policy and then there's not a cheap supply of illegal workers who make less because they're illegal.

Most of the media platforms are controlled by the left or the right. So there's no reason to broadcast reason.

 

[bwframe]

... the right loses the support of the chamber-o-commerce wing of the party who wants the cheap labor...

With all due respect, I'm not sure I buy into this often used talking point. It's sounds so similar to the "90% of gun owners are in favor of universal background checks," that we know is BS, yet parroted by both sides. I'd like to see some substantiation that R's are promoting employing illegals.

The answer to the "no workers to do this" problem that may not exist? Review of welfare policy to encourage employment over living on an income from our tax dollars.

 

[IndyDave1776]

With all due respect, I'm not sure I buy into this often used talking point. It's sounds so similar to the "90% of gun owners are in favor of universal background checks," that we know is BS, yet parroted by both sides. I'd like to see some substantiation that R's are promoting employing illegals.

The answer to the "no workers to do this" problem that may not exist? Review of welfare policy to encourage employment over living on an income from our tax dollars.

I would be inclined to say that the fact that our establishment Republicans are as enthusiastic about engaging in any real solution as they are about getting violated with a shovel handle pretty well proves that there is a reason why they don't want to fix this problem, and Jamil's explanation is the only plausible one of which I am aware.

 

[Hohn]

I would be inclined to say that the fact that our establishment Republicans are as enthusiastic about engaging in any real solution as they are about getting violated with a shovel handle pretty well proves that there is a reason why they don't want to fix this problem, and Jamil's explanation is the only plausible one of which I am aware.

I'm with Jamil's theory, too. CoC has half of Congress on speed dial. And the non-CoC opposition is split 80 million ways.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm with Jamil's theory, too. CoC has half of Congress on speed dial. And the non-CoC opposition is split 80 million ways.

 

[jamil]

I'm with Jamil's theory, too. CoC has half of Congress on speed dial. And the non-CoC opposition is split 80 million ways.

I snorted my coffee when I thought of what CoC would sound like out loud.

 

[Alpo]

I snorted my coffee when I thought of what CoC would sound like out loud.

In full solidarity with the tortoise thread....

 

[IndyDave1776]

I snorted my coffee when I thought of what CoC would sound like out loud.

If the shoe fits...

 

[jamil]

In full solidarity with the tortoise thread....

What's the tortoise thread?

 

[JAL]

Good luck with that. A lawsuit to compel the continued failure to enforce the law and enshrine an unconstitutional overreach?

OK

SNL actually got this one right:

[video=youtube;JUDSeb2zHQ0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUDSeb2zHQ0[/video]

A bit simplified, but yup, they got it, and it was very entertaining too. My take on the recent events is Trump telling Congress to either chirp or get off the branch regarding the content of the DACA Executive Order. The message was crystal clear to me: do something with immigration reform legislation. They've been sitting fat, dumb, and happy over on Capitol Hill while the hot potato was sitting over in the White House. Now it's sitting in the Capitol Building. There may ultimately be a deal made to get some form of narrow DACA in return for a wall. That's just an observation from the sidelines. Not to be considered an opinion about its merits, beyond my belief Trump is doing the right thing giving Congress six months to do something.

John

 

[ghitch75]

Pro-DACA coverage on ABC, CBS and NBC was 99 percent against Trump's decision | Fox News

 

[SheepDog4Life]

DACA ? Unfairness to Non-Mexicans | National Review

An article about the unfairness of DACA towards non-Mexicans (and non-central Americans) written from the perspective of some of the estimated 165 Million people who wish to immigrate here.

 

[Twangbanger]

A bit simplified, but yup, they got it, and it was very entertaining too. My take on the recent events is Trump telling Congress to either chirp or get off the branch regarding the content of the DACA Executive Order. The message was crystal clear to me: do something with immigration reform legislation. They've been sitting fat, dumb, and happy over on Capitol Hill while the hot potato was sitting over in the White House. Now it's sitting in the Capitol Building. There may ultimately be a deal made to get some form of narrow DACA in return for a wall. That's just an observation from the sidelines. Not to be considered an opinion about its merits, beyond my belief Trump is doing the right thing giving Congress six months to do something.

John

The Democrats have been very specific and adamant, from 2010 until Chuck Schumer just the other day, in stating that the only form of the "Dream Act" they will accept is a "clean" one, in which there is no quid-pro-quo for anything. That pretty well strikes out the possibility of a deal. When Democrats indicate that there's nothing whatsoever that they would be willing to "trade" for the Dream Act, what they're basically saying is one of two things:

1) All of the potential trading chips they might give away are of greater value to them than legalizing Dreamers, or

2) the Dreamer issue is worth more to them as a propaganda issue, than as an actual enacted piece of legislation.

...or, both.

Myself? I think in a rational world, something like E-verify would be a decent exchange for the Dreamers. At least, if you believe in a country with borders. I would support that, if I were a congressman myself. But that isn't going to happen, for two reasons: one, is what I listed in 1) above. The Democrats consider that too big of a chip to give away. The Dreamers are only 800,000 individual specific people, who have finite life-spans and will eventually die. E-verify, on the other hand, permanently affects every other illegal immigrant's primary reason for coming here, current and future. Giving that away, jeopardizes the Democrats' plan to never have another night like Nov. 8 2016.

The second reason E-verify won't happen, is it involves the Federal Government placing a mandate on private sector employers. Many Republicans could easily claim to oppose that on mere constitutional and/or small government grounds. That is why providing the substantiation Burl asks for, above, ie proof that Republicans support employing illegals, is like nailing jello to a wall. All the Republicans have to do, to make their donors wishes a reality, is to stick to their narrow "business friendly small-government" schtick. We know they're really not for small-government (or not most of them, at least). But when the interests of ordinary, already-here Americans are pitted against those of corporations, the Republicans will break-off that small-government spear in us every time. It's that selective nature in pursuing their small-government principles, that causes many of us to believe it just isn't real. Or at least, not in any way which could benefit little gun-owning simple people like us.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The Democrats have been very specific and adamant, from 2010 until Chuck Schumer just the other day, in stating that the only form of the "Dream Act" they will accept is a "clean" one, in which there is no quid-pro-quo for anything. That pretty well strikes out the possibility of a deal. When Democrats indicate that there's nothing whatsoever that they would be willing to "trade" for the Dream Act, what they're basically saying is one of two things:

1) All of the potential trading chips they might give away are of greater value to them than legalizing Dreamers, or

2) the Dreamer issue is worth more to them as a propaganda issue, than as an actual enacted piece of legislation.

...or, both.

Myself? I think in a rational world, something like E-verify would be a decent exchange for the Dreamers. At least, if you believe in a country with borders. I would support that, if I were a congressman myself. But that isn't going to happen, for two reasons: one, is what I listed in 1) above. The Democrats consider that too big of a chip to give away. The Dreamers are only 800,000 individual specific people, who have finite life-spans and will eventually die. E-verify, on the other hand, permanently affects every other illegal immigrant's primary reason for coming here, current and future. Giving that away, jeopardizes the Democrats' plan to never have another night like Nov. 8 2016.

The second reason E-verify won't happen, is it involves the Federal Government placing a mandate on private sector employers. Many Republicans could easily claim to oppose that on mere constitutional and/or small government grounds. That is why providing the substantiation Burl asks for, above, ie proof that Republicans support employing illegals, is like nailing jello to a wall. All the Republicans have to do, to make their donors wishes a reality, is to stick to their narrow "business friendly small-government" schtick. We know they're really not for small-government (or not most of them, at least). But when the interests of ordinary, already-here Americans are pitted against those of corporations, the Republicans will break-off that small-government spear in us every time. It's that selective nature in pursuing their small-government principles, that causes many of us to believe it just isn't real. Or at least, not in any way which could benefit little gun-owning simple people like us.

Quoted in case anyone missed it the first time. Excellent post all the way around.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

The Democrats have been very specific and adamant, from 2010 until Chuck Schumer just the other day, in stating that the only form of the "Dream Act" they will accept is a "clean" one, in which there is no quid-pro-quo for anything. That pretty well strikes out the possibility of a deal. When Democrats indicate that there's nothing whatsoever that they would be willing to "trade" for the Dream Act, what they're basically saying is one of two things:

1) All of the potential trading chips they might give away are of greater value to them than legalizing Dreamers, or

2) the Dreamer issue is worth more to them as a propaganda issue, than as an actual enacted piece of legislation.

...or, both.

Myself? I think in a rational world, something like E-verify would be a decent exchange for the Dreamers. At least, if you believe in a country with borders. I would support that, if I were a congressman myself. But that isn't going to happen, for two reasons: one, is what I listed in 1) above. The Democrats consider that too big of a chip to give away. The Dreamers are only 800,000 individual specific people, who have finite life-spans and will eventually die. E-verify, on the other hand, permanently affects every other illegal immigrant's primary reason for coming here, current and future. Giving that away, jeopardizes the Democrats' plan to never have another night like Nov. 8 2016.

The second reason E-verify won't happen, is it involves the Federal Government placing a mandate on private sector employers. Many Republicans could easily claim to oppose that on mere constitutional and/or small government grounds. That is why providing the substantiation Burl asks for, above, ie proof that Republicans support employing illegals, is like nailing jello to a wall. All the Republicans have to do, to make their donors wishes a reality, is to stick to their narrow "business friendly small-government" schtick. We know they're really not for small-government (or not most of them, at least). But when the interests of ordinary, already-here Americans are pitted against those of corporations, the Republicans will break-off that small-government spear in us every time. It's that selective nature in pursuing their small-government principles, that causes many of us to believe it just isn't real. Or at least, not in any way which could benefit little gun-owning simple people like us.

All true... just a nit, current law is that employers must verify legal status to employ anyone, including day laborers. The paper process is called I-9, requires making copies of identity and legal status documents (DL, passport, birth certificate, green card, visa, etc). If they don't follow the I-9 process they face fines of, IIRC, $2-6,000 per illegal employee that they employ. Using e-Verify is an alternate process and offers safe-habor in that if the employer uses and abides by e-Verify, they cannot be fined or face criminal charges if someone verified by e-Verify turns out too be unlawfully present.

WWOD (What would Obama do?): Trump could order a halt to the I-9 process FORCING employers to use e-Verify in order to comply with the over-arching law, not employing illegals. Cost savings for not having to process all that paper, lol!

Edit: corrected adjective to over-arching

 

[long coat]

Justices allow Trump administration ban on most refugees - - att.net