Apparently you've forgotten that Biden DID forge a compromise bill with Republican Senators Lankford (OK) and Britt (GA). That was made public in February 2024. Trump told Republicans not to vote for it because he didn't want to "give Biden a win."
No, actually i didnt. my response was a tit for tat to the comment about the above, which is guess makes it all a tit for tat for tit
Ok, in response to my initial question, the replies seem to say...since the republicans are in charge now, they should deal with the mess, but we oppose every effort they have, right or wrong, without supporting an alternative (not taking a position on immigrants with criminal records should/shouldn't be deported). Keep muddling the message.
Ps, in 2018, trump offered the democrats an immigration deal that would have protected Dreamers, but Schumer walked away from it after backpedaling/ virtue signaling over $25b for a wall. So to say either party is looking for compromise on a deal is quite dubious, mainly because of âattitudesâ that we wont compromise with the socialists/facists.
pss, I never disclosed my views on immigration (at least recently), so you have nooo idea of what type of immigration policy I support.
psss, I'm not trying to disparage the party...but hope that they wake up. this site has enough republican bashing, and usually rightfully so...but the democrats really dont offer a compelling alternative.
Democratic leaders in Congress have openly stated that they're willing to work with Trump on immigration.
Also:
Apparently you've forgotten that Biden DID forge a compromise bill with Republican Senators Lankford (OK) and Britt (GA). That was made public in February 2024. Trump told Republicans not to vote for it because he didn't want to "give Biden a win."
The nearly 400-page package also includes sweeping bipartisan immigration legislation that would:
Raise the bar for migrants claiming asylum;
Clarify the White Houseâs use of parole authority to temporarily grant protections to migrants;
Create a procedure to shut down the border at particularly active times;
And end the practice of allowing migrants to live in the United States while they wait for their cases to be heard by an immigration judge.
Senate Republicans had insisted that the changes in immigration policy accompany the global aid package.
For security, the measure includes $60 billion to support Ukraine in its war against Russia and $14.1 billion in assistance for Israel. It also has $10 billion in humanitarian assistance âto provide food, water, shelter, medical care, and other essential services to civilians in Gaza and the West Bank, Ukraine, and other populations caught in conflict zones across the globe,â according to a summary.
âFailing to pass this supplemental, and failing to support Ukraine is nothing short of throwing in the towel to Putin,â Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, said on a call with reporters.
The immigration provisions, negotiated by the White House and Sens. James Lankford, a Republican from Oklahoma, Chris Murphy, a Democrat from Connecticut, and Kyrsten Sinema, an independent from Arizona, would be the biggest changes to immigration law in nearly 40 years if enacted â although a tough path is ahead in both the Senate and House."
...
The bill makes changes to credible fear of persecution standards for asylum and for the expedited removal of those asylum seekers who donât qualify. There would be $3.99 billion provided for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to hire 4,338 asylum officers.
Schumer said the deal the three senators worked on for four months âis a real opportunity for Congress to address our borders and make progress towards a more efficient and well-resourced system.â
âThis agreement improves an adjudication system that has been underfunded for decades by hiring more frontline personnel, asylum officers, and creating new processes to provide faster and fair decisions,â Schumer said.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in a statement blamed President Joe Biden for âan unprecedented crisisâ at the Southern border and said the legislation would force the president to enforce immigration laws. The Kentucky Republican also praised the new emergency tools.
âI am grateful to Senator Lankford for working tirelessly to ensure that supplemental national security legislation begins with direct and immediate solutions to the crisis at our southern border,â McConnell said.
Border funding
The package includes $20.23 billion to âaddress existing operational needs and expand capabilities at our nationâs borders, resource the new border policies included in the package, and help stop the flow of fentanyl and other narcotics,â according to a summary from Murrayâs office.
Murray said on the call with reporters Sunday evening that âthereâs no reason for drama, delay, or partisanship.â
While the Senate language is bipartisan, U.S. House Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson, have said new immigration legislation is not necessary and blame Biden for not enforcing current law. Several House members strongly criticized the measure after it was released Sunday.
Ok, in response to my initial question, the replies seem to say...since the republicans are in charge now, they should deal with the mess, but we oppose every effort they have, right or wrong, without supporting an alternative (not taking a position on immigrants with criminal records should/shouldn't be deported). Keep muddling the message.
Ps, in 2018, trump offered the democrats an immigration deal that would have protected Dreamers, but Schumer walked away from it after backpedaling/ virtue signaling over $25b for a wall. So to say either party is looking for compromise on a deal is quite dubious, mainly because of âattitudesâ that we wont compromise with the socialists/facists.
pss, I never disclosed my views on immigration (at least recently), so you have nooo idea of what type of immigration policy I support.
psss, I'm not trying to disparage the party...but hope that they wake up. this site has enough republican bashing, and usually rightfully so...but the democrats really dont offer a compelling alternative.
WTFâ¦you keep arguing with me on a topic Iâm not arguing.
The issue isnât the bs stories the republicans spin on immigration (though obviously an issue itself.)
The issue is how ineffective the democrats are at crafting their own narrative in response to all the lies, and bs coming from the republicans. Their inability to steal the narrative back to where it belongs.
"The issue is how ineffective the democrats are at crafting their own narrative in response to all the lies, and bs coming from the republicans. Their inability to steal the narrative back to where it belongs."
If this last election showed us anything, it's that all the logic, sound policy plans and political spin will fail in the face of prejudice, fear and blatant racism. The Democrats could have pushed forward a carbon-copy of the hard-right GOP bill on immigration and the GOP still would have rejected it because Trump didn't want to give Biden a win.
And the country sure as hell wasn't going to elect a woman, especially a Black woman, running against a White man. People voted for Trump because they were tired of inflation. Their fear for their economic future bled into the fear of immigrants, minorities and empowered women.
These days it really feels like the US is turning into a "$h*^h0|e country."
WTFâ¦you keep arguing with me on a topic Iâm not arguing.
The issue isnât the bs stories the republicans spin on immigration (though obviously an issue itself.)
The issue is how ineffective the democrats are at crafting their own narrative in response to all the lies, and bs coming from the republicans. Their inability to steal the narrative back to where it belongs.
The Democrats had a message. It had bipartisan support. It was actually a piece of legislation. It did much of what you want.
Even before a bipartisan group of senators unveiled the text of a foreign aid and immigration overhaul bill on Feb. 4, it faced significant opposition from former President Donald Trump and other Republican leaders.
Before the bill had been released, Republican Sen. Ted Cruz described it as âa steaming pile of crap.â After seeing it, Cruz said, âit turned out my assessment was far too kind.â
On Feb. 7, the bill failed in the Senate after it was opposed by all but four Republicans and a few Democrats. Some of the criticism leveled by Republicans opposing the bill was based on a distortion of what it would and would not do.
Much of the controversy centered on a section of the bill that would have provided emergency authority to the administration to âsummarily removeâ people who cross into the U.S. illegally between ports of entry, even if they are seeking asylum. While Trump argues that presidents already have that authority, the fact is that when he tried to exercise that kind of authority, the courts blocked him.
Trump and other Republicans have also said the bill would have permitted up to 5,000 illegal entries per day, but thatâs not accurate either.
So the people voted based on misinformation. But that worked and now trump is in charge and causing strife. The Democrats certainly could have a different message, maybe even more cohesive (not really their style). But maybe this isn't the Democrats issue to solve. How about all the Republicans who supported this piece of shit (legislation or legislator, take your pick)? Where are all the big farmers asking for a rational policy. Where are the moderate Republicans? Where are the Christians who believe in helping their brothers? Why don't these people have a more cohesive message to the turd blossom who claims to only represent them? The Dems were voted out. They have their issues, but it's certainly odd to blame them when there are a lot of other people who *SHOULD* be saying something and are instead naval gazing and wondering why the Democrats aren't saving them from themselves - "You shouldn't have let us run with scissors, this is all your fault".
WTFâ¦you keep arguing with me on a topic Iâm not arguing.
The issue isnât the bs stories the republicans spin on immigration (though obviously an issue itself.)
The issue is how ineffective the democrats are at crafting their own narrative in response to all the lies, and bs coming from the republicans. Their inability to steal the narrative back to where it belongs.
Yes, dehumanizing my friends with bullshit cover stories will get an emotional reaction from me.
I'd still welcome any legitimate discussion, but saying immigration is causing crime or taking jobs is false. So what are the other reasons? And why don't they apply to other immigrants?
WTFâ¦you keep arguing with me on a topic Iâm not arguing.
The issue isnât the bs stories the republicans spin on immigration (though obviously an issue itself.)
The issue is how ineffective the democrats are at crafting their own narrative in response to all the lies, and bs coming from the republicans. Their inability to steal the narrative back to where it belongs.
no, not really what you said...scroll down.
seems its very emotional for you, so i will pass on further conversation.
Yes, dehumanizing my friends with bullshit cover stories will get an emotional reaction from me.
I'd still welcome any legitimate discussion, but saying immigration is causing crime or taking jobs is false. So what are the other reasons? And why don't they apply to other immigrants?
Not a pissing match. Just replying to your comment/question. You asked why there was a muddled response. I reply - there was a strong response that was quashed by Trump. Trump has now used that leverage to win a controlling position. The ball is in his court and he is taking actions that many consider extreme, but most of his supporters are still cheering. Why is it on the Democrats to have a new message? The only message the Republicans had last year was 'we will fight Biden', so is 'we will fight Trump' really so much of a stretch? And why was there no cry of 'better message' from the Republicans then?
I'm sorry if you find the racism discussion bothersome. But the fact is that vast majority of the immigration stuff is targeting Latinos. The general reasons given are crime and jobs. I've provided studies on both that show that if anything undocumented immigrants are a benefit in both categories. So what is all the concern about. I know this isn't the question you asked, but it's the one I'm bringing up in response. I think immigration is an easily dealt with issue and that crime especially isn't at the root of this as an issue. It's a wedge issue that happens to use crime improperly to allow many racists to respond comfortably. I don't necessarily think this is you, but I haven't heard any good reasons why you are so worried about crime from a group that is underrepresented in the crime statistics. If it's job related, again I provided a recent study that is very well done showing how immigrants (undocumented) actually improve jobs for regular citizens.
I'm not trying to be pissy, but I will respond to this subject as I have pretty strong feelings about it. For the record, I have many friends who are Mexican/Honduran/Brazilian, and I have residency in Mexico. I also love the culture and most of the people there. They have their issues, but they do a lot of things right, and we could learn a thing or twelve from them.
no, not really what you said...scroll down.
seems its very emotional for you, so i will pass on further conversation.
Hey, sorry if you found this offensive but Iâm not trying to start a pissing match.
I asked a question about why the messaging from many democratic mayors on the deportation issue has been so muddled. Maybe you donât agree?
My intent, if anything, was not to point out how they are wrong, trump is rightâ¦but to implore them to do a better job communicating their message, beyond the message of we will fight trump.
You found that question offensive (?), turned it on trump (which again, is probably not the answer middle of the road constituents are looking for), and made a lot of (inaccurate) assumptions about my views on immigration, implied Iâm racist⦠Iâm not interested in a fight, especially defending one that I didnât put up.
Not a pissing match. Just replying to your comment/question. You asked why there was a muddled response. I reply - there was a strong response that was quashed by Trump. Trump has now used that leverage to win a controlling position. The ball is in his court and he is taking actions that many consider extreme, but most of his supporters are still cheering. Why is it on the Democrats to have a new message? The only message the Republicans had last year was 'we will fight Biden', so is 'we will fight Trump' really so much of a stretch? And why was there no cry of 'better message' from the Republicans then?
I'm sorry if you find the racism discussion bothersome. But the fact is that vast majority of the immigration stuff is targeting Latinos. The general reasons given are crime and jobs. I've provided studies on both that show that if anything undocumented immigrants are a benefit in both categories. So what is all the concern about. I know this isn't the question you asked, but it's the one I'm bringing up in response. I think immigration is an easily dealt with issue and that crime especially isn't at the root of this as an issue. It's a wedge issue that happens to use crime improperly to allow many racists to respond comfortably. I don't necessarily think this is you, but I haven't heard any good reasons why you are so worried about crime from a group that is underrepresented in the crime statistics. If it's job related, again I provided a recent study that is very well done showing how immigrants (undocumented) actually improve jobs for regular citizens.
I'm not trying to be pissy, but I will respond to this subject as I have pretty strong feelings about it. For the record, I have many friends who are Mexican/Honduran/Brazilian, and I have residency in Mexico. I also love the culture and most of the people there. They have their issues, but they do a lot of things right, and we could learn a thing or twelve from them.
But the Democrats did have a plan. One with some fairly draconian measures and lots of deportations. They had bipartisan support. But Trump wanted it as an election issue because he knew he could use it as cover for stirring up racist sentiments. And yes, deporting 11 million people, many to Guantanamo bay is draconian.
So now this is on everyone who voted for Trump. I've already pointed out that undocumented immigrants are a net positive for an economy. And that they are not responsible for the crime that everyone is crying about on any statistically relevant level. And that the worry about immigration is very targeted toward one particular segment, while ignoring many other undocumented immigrants who come from other channels and other backgrounds.
I've asked you specifically, what crimes are you singling out for deportation. You sort of answered "yeah, unpaid parking tix and worse.", so are you willing to go after other contributing members of your society for these crimes, or just immigrants who don't look like you?
The reason we aren't articulating the language you want to hear is that we don't buy your whole argument. If you want to give up your humanity to go after people just trying to get by, then you're on your own there. This problem is now on you. The guy you supported is going to do awful things in your name, and it's not the Democrats fault if they can't stop him.
Hey, sorry if you found this offensive but Iâm not trying to start a pissing match.
I asked a question about why the messaging from many democratic mayors on the deportation issue has been so muddled. Maybe you donât agree?
My intent, if anything, was not to point out how they are wrong, trump is rightâ¦but to implore them to do a better job communicating their message, beyond the message of we will fight trump.
You found that question offensive (?), turned it on trump (which again, is probably not the answer middle of the road constituents are looking for), and made a lot of (inaccurate) assumptions about my views on immigration, implied Iâm racist⦠Iâm not interested in a fight, especially defending one that I didnât put up.
He has a long history of doing this to many others in addition to you right now.
The more you engage him and disagree with him, the meaner he gets.
It is deliberate. His standard M O.
Best to just let him go and rant away being on both sides of an issue at the same time to avoid sullying his rep with his followers.
.
Or just explain why you are all for going after one particular group and not any other. A group that is easily identified by race. A group that doesn't inhabit any of your trigger areas.
Or you can just continue to make disingenuous arguments and cry that the whole world is against you personally.
Or maybe look at things that actually impact the things that you said you cared about (yes, you did say you wanted all those 'illegal' persons out of the country, but have stopped well short of many of the 'illegal' persons who happen to look like you), like prices of goods, and the national debt, and our overall security, and getting special interests out of government.... How's all that going for you?
