C
ChuckB
Guest
It’s DOA.
Ann Coulter is going to forbid it.
And Rush will probably nail the coffin shut.
Last edited:
- Status
It’s DOA.
Ann Coulter is going to forbid it.
And Rush will probably nail the coffin shut.
P
ProVobis
Guest
I thought it was the other way around; we voted for Jeb, Rubio, and Cruz , and got Trump.
F
FirstFiveEighth
Guest
It’s DOA because Pelosi wants it DOA. We used to call this proposal by Trump a compromise, but that isn’t in vogue anymore I guess. Coulter doesn’t like the compromise because she sees it as giving up certain amnesty for illegals in exchange for uncertain funding for a complete wall. No matter, because Pelosi doesn’t even want partial funding for a wall. Because inside every Central American is apparently an American trying to get out.
P
Peeps
Guest
I listened to Pres. Trump’s speech while I was driving home today (brrr!). I thought his plan sounded good, or at least, a good place to start a discussion with the goal of arriving at a plan for immigration acceptable to all parties.
Compromise–it’s a good thing, I think. It’s what most Americans have to do every day of their lives.
Compromise–it’s a good thing, I think. It’s what most Americans have to do every day of their lives.
P
ProVobis
Guest
First things first. McConnell’s got to put something up for a vote.
C
ChuckB
Guest
Agreed. 100%. Sadly, to some of the people Trump listens to the most, “compromise” is a dirty word.
A
angel12
Guest
This is me, not holding my breath.
C
ChuckB
Guest
Unfortunately, the “first thing” for McConnell is to provide cover for Trump. If a bill happened to pass and land on the president’s desk, he (Trump) would be caught between a rock and a hard place.
P
ProVobis
Guest
Good thing McConnell doesn’t have a relative working in Trump’s Cabinet. Oh, wait…
D
Dr_Meinheimer
Guest
Trump’s proposal
It seems the Democrats are unwilling to even give an inch. Surprisingly, I thought Romney made good points, for once.
It seems the Democrats are unwilling to even give an inch. Surprisingly, I thought Romney made good points, for once.
Last edited:
E
exnihilo
Guest
Ann is right. It is a horrible deal. We’ve given amnesty I think three times before. Each time it only encourages more illegals to come. We need jailing and deportation of illegals. Without that a wall is pretty useless.
P
ProVobis
Guest
By Trump’s own admission, the number of illegals coming in has been decreasing steadily. One can use the argument that a wall would stop a lot more but would it be built in time to do that?
Last edited:
P
ProVobis
Guest
Good enough to get him appointed as Sec of State? Another guy who’s all over the place.
Last edited:
P
Peeps
Guest
At this point in history in the U.S., jailing and deportation of people who enter the country illegally will never get past the Democrats and the more liberal-moderate Republicans, and wouldn’t get past the Big Cities either (NYC, LA, and Chicago, along with D.C.) that are currently calling all the shots in the U.S. and leaving the rest of the country to wallow in back-country ignorance and lack of compassion as we play with our guns and our religion.
The mood right now in the U.S. is to open up the gates, let everyone in, no questions asked, and hey, we’ll give you 40 acres and a mule when you get here! And don’t forget to vote for us!
But we won’t invite you to live with us in our large homes, and we certainly won’t ask the churches to help sponsor you as you attempt to learn how to make it in America. We’ll leave that to the gangs and mobs.
I just hope it all works out. Even the Catholic Church seems to be teaching that all these people who enter the country illegally are sweet human beings who wouldn’t hurt a fly. I hope to God they’re right. We need more people in the U.S.–our population continues to drop, and we need people to do the work in this land. But I am concerned that Americans who start out their American life with an illegal act (crossing the border without legal process) will find it easy to commit another illegal act, and another, and eventually, all of their lives will consist of illegal acts.
Wouldn’t it be better for us all, Democrats and Republicans, to support some kind of barricade that reduces the numbers of people who enter the country illegally and also support a more streamlined, compassionate process that welcomes most of the people who legally seek to come into our country and most importantly, channels those new people to families and organizations, including churches, that can help them to learn the skills that they need to become happy, productive U.S. citizens.
What is so bad about that?! The President has offered a good plan as a starting place for negotiations. But if no one will sit down with him to negotiate with him–well, that’s nothing to be proud of.
The mood right now in the U.S. is to open up the gates, let everyone in, no questions asked, and hey, we’ll give you 40 acres and a mule when you get here! And don’t forget to vote for us!
But we won’t invite you to live with us in our large homes, and we certainly won’t ask the churches to help sponsor you as you attempt to learn how to make it in America. We’ll leave that to the gangs and mobs.
I just hope it all works out. Even the Catholic Church seems to be teaching that all these people who enter the country illegally are sweet human beings who wouldn’t hurt a fly. I hope to God they’re right. We need more people in the U.S.–our population continues to drop, and we need people to do the work in this land. But I am concerned that Americans who start out their American life with an illegal act (crossing the border without legal process) will find it easy to commit another illegal act, and another, and eventually, all of their lives will consist of illegal acts.
Wouldn’t it be better for us all, Democrats and Republicans, to support some kind of barricade that reduces the numbers of people who enter the country illegally and also support a more streamlined, compassionate process that welcomes most of the people who legally seek to come into our country and most importantly, channels those new people to families and organizations, including churches, that can help them to learn the skills that they need to become happy, productive U.S. citizens.
What is so bad about that?! The President has offered a good plan as a starting place for negotiations. But if no one will sit down with him to negotiate with him–well, that’s nothing to be proud of.
D
dvdjs
Guest
I think it goes without saying that Trump’s polling trend figures into this latest proposal that has generated backlash from supporters. And that is, in part, the topic of the thread.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Hold it right there. We already have jailing and deportation of people who have entered the county recently and illegally, with the exception of those who claim asylum, which is provided for by US law.
Not the mood. Not the practice. What it is is a gross exaggeration of this country’s basic humanity.
We certainly will. (Not our personal large homes but other large homes right next to ours if they can afford it. But then no one ever claimed that anyone should be forced to take in a border in their private homes, so another gross exaggeration.)
You don’t have to ask the churches. They are lining up and volunteering.
That’s the same thing the asylum seekers are saying.
Another gross exaggeration, but with a kernel of truth. The Catholic Church is urging compassion. Where do you stand vis-a-vis respecting the teaching of the Catholic Church?
Convicting people for what you think they might do?
Yes, it would be better, and I hope they take the deal. Not because I think the barricade is cost-effective (because it isn’t) but because 5.7 billion is a small ransom to pay to get our country working again. Political compromise often involves accepting something less than optimal to get something.
That is exactly what is not being done now. Not because of the lack of a wall and the proliferation of illegal crossings, but because of woefully inadequate processing facilities and manpower. We need more immigration judges so that those who do “wait in line” at the legal points of entry won’t be facing a wait of 2-3 months sitting in Mexico without any place to stay. If a wall diverts more asylum-seekers to the legal points of entry, all that will happen is these lines will get even longer. That’s not compassionate, as you called it.
C
ChuckB
Guest
Come on! No one but the most radical left-wingers support open borders. The narrative that the Democrats favor crime, drugs, gangs, etc. is simply not true.
I agree…100 percent. I think this is the position that most people (except the few at either extreme of the political spectrum) take. Unfortunately, some of the people who have the president’s ear also want to place extreme restrictions on legal immigration too. As you correctly noted, we need immigrants.
Unfortunately, Trump’s idea of negotiating is “I win, you lose.” And he is willing to hold 800,000 government workers hostage to get his way. Additionally, he has been known to bail out of deals that he makes at the last minute. It’s kind of hard to have any meaningful negotiation with someone like that. That said, if he would allow funding to re-open the government, I think the Democrats would make a good-faith effort to negotiate with him. He might not get his big, beautiful, 30 foot tall wall from sea to shining sea, but I think most reasonable people agree that there are sections of the border that would benefit from additional barriers. And other areas where it would be a total waste of money that could be used more effectively somewhere else.
Me too!
B
Boatswain2PA
Guest
Or Pelosi. The bill could start in the House.
Few things on this. First, President Reagan AND Bush “compromised” with Democrats on this issue, granting amnesty to millions in exchange for border security. The Amnesty happened, but then the funding for border security never happened. We’ve been down this road twice. One big reason Trump was elected was because he wanted to build the wall (Those of us with common sense knew that was an analogy for border security, not a physical wall from sea to sea).
Second, Trump just offered a compromise. It is Pelosi and her Democrats who won’t compromise. Apparently they have not only changed their minds on the importance of border security, but now no longer care about the Dreamers.
Not if it contained border security and a pathway to citizenship for Dreamers.
Agreed. However Dems favor policies that lead to crime, drugs, gangs, etc. Look at most major cities in the US for evidence of this.
And yet President Trump just offered a pathway to citizenship to Dreamers. Maybe he is his own man instead of being owned by the far right of the party (many of us had concerns for Trump not being conservative ENOUGH in the primaries).
But will you say the same thing about Pelosi? She was just offered a deal for the Dreamers and won’t even discuss it.
Or is it ALL Trump’s fault in your mind?
And yet he just offered a deal on the Dreamers…hardly an “I win you lose” proposal. And, in your mind, is it JUST President Trump who is holding 800,000 workers hostage? Or does Pelosi have any responsibility in this??
And yet he just offered to give the Democrats exactly what they have wanted…kind of makes your comment here sound ridiculous.
F
FOG
Guest
Really? We want no walls and naturalization of Dreamers…nothing else…he elected to shut down government, and proudly take credit for it, and now, again he is waffling and blaming others…and now he and his apologists have to live with it…America knows…the midterms proved that, and in 2020 this great national nightmare will be in our rear view mirror…even sooner if he resigns.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
Make it green card for dreamers and TPS to and not three years of amnesty, and maybe the democrats will go for it. That’s the logical counter offerr
- Status