Trump administration caves on illegal schemers (aka dreamers)
Posted by freedomforall 7 years, 7 months ago to Politics
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
From what me dino gathered for listening to talk radio, Rush Limbaugh expressed that he is wondering if Trump expected such a reaction.
The Jackasses want it all. No wall, open borders, zillions of new Democrat voters~public safety, the Republic, our culture be damned.
Perhaps Trump's "offer" was not intended to be to the Democrats but to Susan Collins.
The only consistency on the part of the Democrats is their extreme views on socialism/communism. To call their views "consistent" with any form of logic or observation would be a smear against Reality.
"Perhaps Trump's "offer" was not intended to be to the Democrats but to Susan Collins."
That I could completely agree with, but I would add two more RINOs: John McCain and Lisa Murkowski. I can maybe (big caveats) understand a Senator from Arizona being concerned about immigration, but Alaska and Maine? We aren't getting invaded by the Canucks...
This time I think Republicans would be well off to just say "stick it" and build the wall and reform immigration - in spite of the Democrats. Set up the debate in the Senate so that cloture doesn't require a vote and if the Dems really want to filibuster, they have to do so the old-fashioned way rather than simply by obstructing a vote in the first place.
I think this is all just a side issue to distract Trump from his goals.
They compromise politically when it furthers their agenda, while Republicans, who have no principles, compromise politically with their 'me too but slower' strategy. The Democrats' "compromise" always means taking what they can get and coming back for the rest later, as Republicans help them do it in the name of compromise as an end in itself for politicians.
We still need people willing to work, to assimilate and help us grow. What we have is a dishonest system that is based on bigotry, racism and misunderstanding of the need for elevating society by pushing up from the bottom as well as pulling from the top.
Mostly because I know a little about them, my wife's grandparents on her father's side are my favorite immigrants. In 1912 Marino and Palmae came to America from a tiny little town on the Adriatic coast of Italy. One of Marino's uncles had somehow ended up in NY and wrote him a letter that there was a man that recruited immigrants from Ellis Island to work in the coal fields of West Virginia. Conditions were poor in Italy and WWI was looming so these newlyweds got on a train to Naples and a boat to NY. I have seen the passenger list and a picture of the boat. Passengers were listed as 1st class, 2nd class, 3rd class and "Passengers from Naples". I do not think the latter accommodations were very swanky and the boat barely looked like it was seaworthy. Working in the mines has never been a desire of mine, even though I grew up in a mining town. Marino worked every day until he retired at 65 and he and Palmae raised 4 children. All of their children were high school graduates, hard workers and married to non-Italians. All of their children went to college and are mostly only 1/4 Italian and mostly married to non-Catholics. At the time the grandparents arrived in WV, Italians occupied a social station only slightly higher than the Negro miners that came from Alabama. In 100 years all the "immigrant" issues of that family have disappeared and they are all just Americans. They aren't poor, some are far from it but they made their own way.
To me, we need an immigration model that encourages this type of immigration, not the corrupt tangle of laws that aren't even obeyed. It doesn't matter what color people are, what religion they follow, what their political beliefs are. If they have to assimilate to survive they will be fine. If they can live on welfare and gather in ethnic ghettoes then we will have problems like Europe.
With the current low unemployment we are just about out of labor and are stimulating investment to create economic growth and more jobs. This is going to blow up in our face when there aren't enough people to sustain it. People who come here to work have to learn to speak English to do so. If they want to be successful, they will try to fit in and their children will assimilate even faster. This will not happen, only if we incentive them to do otherwise.
If I could find a job that doesn't support big government I might apply. Oh, but they won't hire someone my age and gender and color because age discrimination is legal, and I didn't earn my knowledge or abilities. That degree summa cum laude just proves I'm a racist, sexist, and whatever-ist.
Sorry, I'm grouchy today;^)
We'll know more in about six months, but while I'd love to see a filibuster-proof majority, I'll say right now I doubt it is going to happen.
If it did, however, the Republicans might be able to get a Balanced Budge Amendment passed and sent to the States. Wouldn't that be a sight to see?
The alternative for them is to comply with the law and get the same treatment as all other potential immigrants. So far they are illegal and are violating the law. No reward for violating the law.
They'd probably respond by accusing those proposing it of being racists, or by saying it would be taxation without representation, although other law breakers are not allowed to vote.
Here in Arizona there are many Hispanics that live here and don't know any English. This makes me angry as hell. Part of the immigration reform is that all these illegals and others that don't speak the language be sent back to where they came from.
I would support a “path to citizenship” for those who were brought here as children and had little or no choice in the matter.
Such a policy does need to be accompanied by enhanced border security – a wall or something else – to prevent further incursions by the first type of immigrant above.
I prefer Trump’s approach to the approaches of the “mainstream” Republicans and Democrats.
The Democrats should have their noses rubbed in how their unfair proposals discriminate against "legal" immigrants.
This is a festering wound inherited from administrations gone by that didn't do their job. Build the wall and do the job so this crap doesn't happen again.
The "wall" isn't nearly enough. It may slow down some gangs sneaking over the border at night, but without government policy enforcing protection of the border and the entry points it would not solve the problem. I suspect that many who support the "wall" do so in part as a barrier against our own government malfeasance, as if a physical barrier could be a substitute for rational government. It isn't.
Then we should be quoting that law.
Any Amnesty CANNOT STAND! It's in violation of our own laws!
https://immigrationreform.com/2018/01...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...
George Carlin on the American Dream
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-14Sl...
Yet you want to reward them by putting them ahead of other potential immigrants.
I have explained my rational point of view repeatedly.
They ARE whining that they are special and deserve preferential treatment. Not because of anything they have achieved or produced, but because their parents broke the law. Rubbish. That does not deserve a reward of citizenship or of residency. They are not as a class any better than other prospective immigrants.
You insist on rewarding these people by giving them a category separate from other immigrants that doesn't require them to be as qualified as others.
That sends the same wrong message that has been sent in every amnesty given to illegals in the past..
Unless you have something new to add that changes their status don't expect another reply.
But I can live with letting them apply in the same group with all other prospective immigrants and be judged on their merits. They should have already gained an advantage from living in the US by learning American customs and language, but they do not show any understanding of fair play that is a vital part of being American, imo.
I'm sick of whiners of all kinds. Whether it's immigrants or whining CEO's begging to have government give them an advantage over their domestic competition, they should all just produce and prove what they can do without taxpayer assistance. (Oh, and they should shut up and stop whining!)
Nothing can be decided objectively on a case by case basis when there are no rational standards and there is no public discussion of what the standards should be, only demands for perpetual amnesty except for those struggling to come legally for proper reasons, versus demands to throw out or bar all the "outsiders" who are deemed to not be a collectivist "asset". How would any rational government decision be made on a case by case basis in this mess?
Let the dreamers try Canada
Just because “progressives” are making ridiculous demands for any and all illegal immigrants, doesn’t mean that rational standards for immigration acceptance or rejection cannot be created and enforced.
I agree that “dreamers” is an inappropriate word for identifying this particular group of illegal immigrants, and I avoid using the term whenever possible.
There was no contradiction in my post. I did not say to treat people on a case by case basis -- even if it would be done by an objective standard, which it would not be -- based either on whether they are whiners or what Democrats call "dreamers", which is all of them.
What if I break into your house with my UNDER AGE Kid, and we take over. Keep you locked in the basement. When the police finally come save you, how would you deal with my child. Granted, I am willing to go to Jail as long as my kid gets to keep your house. They have grown accustomed to it, and it was NOT their fault...
What else can the government DO, while upholding ALL OF Our Existing laws?
You are asking that they be treated special.
And what does that do to DETER future people coming?
They are LITERALLY Gaming our kindness, our natural tendency to be giving... In order to come here illegally and break our laws at rates WAY HIGHER than normal citizens.
Regarding illegal immigrants brought here as children, and who have committed no other crimes, I do not consider it “special treatment” to establish separate criteria to deal with this group, since its members differ in many important respects from other illegals who knowingly and voluntarily broke the law by crossing the border.
As I said earlier on this topic, there is no way to untangle the current immigration mess in a way that would be “fair” to everyone. However, it would be manifestly unfair and in no one’s self-interest to deport all illegal immigrants that were brought here as children. Objective standards should be put in place to evaluate each person’s application for residency and/or citizenship, based on his or her character, respect for other people’s lives and property, and knowledge of and adherence to the principles of individual liberty. It would perhaps be appropriate to offset the advantages they obtained by being here already, by imposing a more stringent set of requirements on this group of immigrants than on those going through the normal immigration process.
Is a $1 Million TAX too high (per Illegal?) :-)
have a good night!
To me, the longer they have been here without taking the proper steps to do so legally is evidence against lenient treatment - not for. They've had all that much more time to come clean and do things properly, yet they haven't. In some cases, all they have done is exacerbate the problem by bringing more people here behind them. Also, I don't buy the fear aspect: only those who are breaking the laws have any reason to fear. (And their open actions marching for these perceived "rights" indicate they really don't even have much fear.)
I support uniform immigration policy. I don't support any special privileges just because you've been here X number of years. You go to the back of the line behind everyone who applied in good faith before you.
Objectivism does not claim that “Context does not matter when dealing with objective laws.” As Tara Smith, author of Judicial Review in an Objective Legal System, points out, “For courts to be objective, then, when engaged in judicial review, they must be guided by the law that they find in its full context, understood in light of the principles and the commitments that animate it. It would be non-objective for judges to ignore those values.”
http://theundercurrent.org/judicial-r...
As to the argument about context, what contextual reading in immigration law puts precedence on illegals already here? I can't find any. To be objective, the law must apply equally to everyone - not pick and choose special cases for exemption/special treatment. THAT is what context is - it applies to the LAW and not the subject. Very different.
Example: the context of the Second Amendment. It is clear from the writings at the time that the Founding Fathers understood that the right to self-defense applied to every American individually and that no government infringement on that right was acceptable. The context applicable revolves around the necessity of a militia, which properly understood reinforces the individual right to bear arms. But the context of the law entirely deals with the ability to resist repression by tyrannical government. It doesn't grant special privileges to those who identify with any respective militia, however.
Jumping the "line" may not hold someone else up but allowing it and then granting amnesty from the law in principle is an injustice to everyone else.
We also know that "citizenship" is an increasing farce. The standards, even if they can be difficult or expensive, do not address rational requirements for citizenship, and immigrants, legal or not, are increasingly granted citizenship rights and improper entitlements they are not supposed to have, such as voting, state taxpayer-funded education, social security, and outright welfare subsidies.
Seriously, look at Ben Shapiro's podcast or Daily Wire articles about this. Totally spot-on for this issue.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/26376/...
'You don’t know my conception of self-interest. No one has the right to pursue his self-interest by law or by force, which is what you’re suggesting. You want to forbid immigration on the grounds that it lowers your standard of living — which isn’t true, though if it were true, you’d still have no right to close the borders. You’re not entitled to any “self-interest” that injures others, especially when you can’t prove that open immigration affects your self-interest. You can’t claim that anything others may do — for example, simply through competition — is against your self-interest. But above all, aren’t you dropping a personal context? How could I advocate restricting immigration when I wouldn’t be alive today if our borders had been closed?'
(Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, edited by Robert Mayhew, p. 25.)"
From The Ayn Rand Institute, here: https://ari.aynrand.org/blog/2017/02/...
Her answer might have been different if she was still living and was asked the question today given the acts of terror that have been done by immigrants since she died.
Ayn Rand was strongly pro-immigration on principle as a consequence of the principles of individualism, but she also explicitly did not support invasion or anarchism.
Conservatives promoting economic protectionism, government protection of "tradition" against "outsiders", subjectivism in choosing who can come, and demands that emigrants only be allowed for a collectivist national benefit are package-dealing that with legitimate objections to terrorists, government welfare seekers, and a large influx of illiterate tribalists seeking socialist changes to our political system in what amounts to invasion -- encouraged by collectivists already here who want their illiterate "votes".
Almost every kind of migrant from every continent, bodies fat or thin, skin yellow or gray, culture stone-age or sophisticated, assimilate into nations that accept migrants. Many migrants do not have the host nation's standards, but these can take perhaps a generation to acquire.
I doubt that crime rates are statistically above average.
But now, there is a category of migrant that has no intention of assimilation, or even of co-existing.
They are collectivist by admission.
So Ayn Rand made no specific mention of these.
Well, show me Rand's answer to the question-
Should this nation accept mass migration by persons who have a collectivist common culture
requiring them to hate, rape and enslave others?
NON-CITIZEN Federal Crime Rates of ILLEGALS:
22% of Murders
18% of Fraud
33% of Money Laundering
29% of Drug Trafficking
72% of Drug Possession
Now, this is for a group of EITHER 10 Million or 30 Million (depending on who is asking).
at 30 Million (the larger number. They would make up ~10% of our population)
Making them 2 times more likely to murder (if you use 10 Million and 3% it is 6 Times more likely of Murder)
But look at drug Possession... Probably how they are making their living. 72% when you make up 10%
that makes them 7 Times more likely to be possessing drugs.
Bear in mind, that the LEFT has CONFLATED Illegals with Immigrants (on purpose, and then quotes how IMMIGRANTS commit less crime, which EXCLUDES the illegals, but lets them wax philosophically about how great these people are, so we should shut up).
Remember the phrase "If it saves JUST ONE LIFE"... Well stopping Illegal Immigration would CERTAINLY Save one life! Probably one per day!
A friend of mine was nearly killed by a driver who was here illegally, without a license or insurance. And because my friend did not have Uninsured Motorists Insurance, he got screwed over pretty good. And of course the illegal just disappeared.
They crime rates are much higher... They aren't trying to work at banks, and places that care so much about their background!
" the LEFT has CONFLATED Illegals with Immigrants "
The question is- Is the problem from mussy progressivsta emoting, or the cold intention to destroy?
Answer- Same difference (as we say here).
My point in my earlier post is that legal migrants are ok, the data suggest they are beneficial.
Data on illegals tells us the opposite.
When a nation does not allow itself the right to select there will be short term and long term disaster.
And then I realize it started before I was born, and we fix it now, or we lay America to rest. because it cannot be the same country with the values that are being shoved upon us from all directions.
Government is NOT the solution, it IS the problem!
We agree...
Your examples are not relevant and you know it.
You question my principles? I don't work for the state and I never have.
So far all of this just shows me that the democrats don't want a solution, the latest offer made by Trump was a hell of a lot more than even Schumer expected. Perhaps after Maxine Waters does her critique on the State of the Union more progress will be made on getting something done on many more issues. I'm predicting after her critique we will not have to worry about the elections coming up in November.
Widely making the rounds. I think it started at Mother Jones... I clipped a screen shot of the Tomi Lahren paragraph from the CNN story.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...
Mendelsohn's Tweet here:
https://twitter.com/CleverTitleTK/sta...