President Trump: Making America Great Again...

[BlueK]

The fact is more than "a few dems" voted for that immigration bill. I am sorry if you can't understand the link I posted. In short, dems are clearly hypocrites when it comes to immigration... what they say and do are clearly two different things.



War on drugs doesn't work but that is not the topic here. The right immigration policy is good for the labor market and the economy. Also, young working immigrates that contribute are good for PAC's social security. One of the links I included above talks about all of that but how the dems have totally lost their way when it comes to immigration. It seems that all they do now is just bitch about it and don't actually even try to fix anything.

If you have read anything besides the blinded liberal rags then you know that he has proposed a merit-based system to immigration. (So tell your argument why the current lottery system is so much better.) So how is that keeping basically almost everyone out as you claim Drumpf is thinking? It seems to me he wants immigrates to supply the labor shortage? So where did you get the idea that he wants to keep almost everyone out?

Embedded Tweet

Obama and the dems has their chance to change the immigration laws to the way they would like... Why didn't they? They owned congress and the white house but didn't do a damn thing about immigration. Why not? Clearly the democratic party is the the party of hypocrites. What is their excuse? They could have fixed this immigration thing a long time ago.

Trump sat with people from both sides in front of the cameras and told them he would sign whatever they came up with. They came up with something a couple of weeks later with the dems and republicans compromising. But after consulting with Herr Miller, Trump told them to go to hell.

[BlueK]

The fact is more than "a few dems" voted for that immigration bill. I am sorry if you can't understand the link I posted. In short, dems are clearly hypocrites when it comes to immigration... what they say and do are clearly two different things.



War on drugs doesn't work but that is not the topic here. The right immigration policy is good for the labor market and the economy. Also, young working immigrates that contribute are good for PAC's social security. One of the links I included above talks about all of that but how the dems have totally lost their way when it comes to immigration. It seems that all they do now is just bitch about it and don't actually even try to fix anything.

If you have read anything besides the blinded liberal rags then you know that he has proposed a merit-based system to immigration. (So tell your argument why the current lottery system is so much better.) So how is that keeping basically almost everyone out as you claim Drumpf is thinking? It seems to me he wants immigrates to supply the labor shortage? So where did you get the idea that he wants to keep almost everyone out?

Embedded Tweet

Obama and the dems has their chance to change the immigration laws to the way they would like... Why didn't they? They owned congress and the white house but didn't do a damn thing about immigration. Why not? Clearly the democratic party is the the party of hypocrites. What is their excuse? They could have fixed this immigration thing a long time ago.

The so called merit based system he's proposing would slash current levels of legal immigration by half, right? But if you're arguing for that you're making a socialist, government central planning type of argument: the government knows what we need, not the free market. Let the government decide how many engineers or IT people or whatever else we need rather than allowing companies to hire as many as they think they need and take away government regulation and red tape that make it harder for them to get the talent they need to compete. This is the opposite of a libertarian argument. Also, the president's idea gives no merit to a worker who would take the lower level jobs even though the economy needs those too. Let's be protectionist about the lower level work and save it for native born Americans, while we'll let educated foreigners from countries we like take the higher paying jobs. The economic arguments fall apart pretty quickly. We all know it's a smokescreen for the cultural reasons for setting up that kind of an immigration system.

[Commando]

Amen to that but I think we will need a different party before that will happen.

Ben Shaprio sums it up pretty well...

The Utter Hypocrisy And Stupidity Of The Illegal Immigrant Parent-Child Separation Debate

Ha that's funny. I just got done destroying this stupid article by Ben Shapiro on fb. I can cut and paste if you like.

[Commando]

Dems offered the wall for DACA and trump didnt take it.

John Kelly wanted more RAISE Act concessions that had no chance of making it to law without being stapled to the back of DACA.

[BigPiney]

Ha that's funny. I just got done destroying this stupid article by Ben Shapiro on fb. I can cut and paste if you like.

Please do, I am interested. TIA

[Commando]

Short and sweet since I can't find the original post:

1. Shapiro identifies A legal means of separating families- screening for trafficking-- but not the one used by Trump. As I've repeated ad nauseam, Trump/Sessions/Miller's 'zero tolerance' of misdemeanor entry w/out inspection remands the adults to federal marshals and the kids to the Office of Refugee Settlement. By virtue of the adults being charged w a federal crime. Not because of child trafficking screening.

2. Shapiro identifies ONE class of asylum seekers- those presenting themselves at the border. He ignores the vast majority, who are apprehended crossing in the desert and screened for asylum. Crossing without inspection in no wise disqualifies a person for asylum. Shapiro is apparently not aware of this.

3. Nobody is saying the conditions are just now awful. Everybody knows we treat immigrants like shit.

*** HAHAHA I just read Ted's link and it looks like Ben severely changed/pared down the article from the version I read this morning b/c he knows he's full of shit. Good for you, Ben! I think my rebuttal still is mostly relevant. I agree with his fourth point, though.

Worth noting AGAIN that the executive order is meaningless. The problem resulted from his dumb discretionary policy to charge every single person with a misdemeanor, purposely using it as a "deterrent." Sessions also messed up, because if it wasn't for his blatant attempts to erase asylum at the Board of Immigration Appeals by referring cases to himself, we may never have put 2 and 2 together on why asylum seekers were being separated from their kids.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Short and sweet since I can't find the original post:

1. Shapiro identifies A legal means of separating families- screening for trafficking-- but not the one used by Trump. As I've repeated ad nauseam, Trump/Sessions/Miller's 'zero tolerance' of misdemeanor entry w/out inspection remands the adults to federal marshals and the kids to the Office of Refugee Settlement. By virtue of the adults being charged w a federal crime. Not because of child trafficking screening.

2. Shapiro identifies ONE class of asylum seekers- those presenting themselves at the border. He ignores the vast majority, who are apprehended crossing in the desert and screened for asylum. Crossing without inspection in no wise disqualifies a person for asylum. Shapiro is apparently not aware of this.

3. Nobody is saying the conditions are just now awful. Everybody knows we treat immigrants like shit.

*** HAHAHA I just read Ted's link and it looks like Ben severely changed/pared down the article from the version I read this morning b/c he knows he's full of shit. Good for you, Ben! I think my rebuttal still is mostly relevant. I agree with his fourth point, though.

Worth noting AGAIN that the executive order is meaningless. The problem resulted from his dumb discretionary policy to charge every single person with a misdemeanor, purposely using it as a "deterrent." Sessions also messed up, because if it wasn't for his blatant attempts to erase asylum at the Board of Immigration Appeals by referring cases to himself, we may never have put 2 and 2 together on why asylum seekers were being separated from their kids.

First Trump lost his nerve and then Shapiro. Everyone is turning into a bleeding heart liberal!

[Eddie]

It articulates and sets forth exactly what your 'views' are. I just thought it was funny.

Damn you. You got me to read a dumb legal document. For the record - I agree with a lot of it. Not necessarily all of it.

I get why those who despise Trump (and they are legion) are crowing about his quick about-face on the kids separation issue. But wouldn't it be tactically smarter to give the President credit (painful though it would be) for making that decision? If one really wants to get something done with our intellectually challenged and narcissistic president, the best way to do it would be to praise him on those infrequent occasions when he does things like this, thus encouraging more such behavior on his part. But by pointing out his hypocrisy or inconsistency, or mocking him for actually having done something good, his foes merely encourage him to dig in his heels for future battles. I'd love to see greater intelligence on both sides.

I've thought this for a long time. Trump is so predictable in his unpredictability that it seems like it would be somewhat easy to manipulate him - at least a little. Seems like we often hear that the reason he changed his mind about one thing or another is because one of his "advisors" got his ear. I would think that some very vocal and public stroking of his ego would go a LONG way. Of course, I think he gets off on "being his own man" and pissing people off from time to time, so you probably still need to criticize him for the other stuff you don't like so he can be happy about making people angry.

[Commando]

Damn you. You got me to read a dumb legal document. For the record - I agree with a lot of it. Not necessarily all of it.

Well I know it doesn't mention DUIs.

[Uncle Ted]

The so called merit based system he's proposing would slash current levels of legal immigration by half, right? But if you're arguing for that you're making a socialist, government central planning type of argument: the government knows what we need, not the free market. Let the government decide how many engineers or IT people or whatever else we need rather than allowing companies to hire as many as they think they need and take away government regulation and red tape that make it harder for them to get the talent they need to compete. This is the opposite of a libertarian argument. Also, the president's idea gives no merit to a worker who would take the lower level jobs even though the economy needs those too. Let's be protectionist about the lower level work and save it for native born Americans, while we'll let educated foreigners from countries we like take the higher paying jobs. The economic arguments fall apart pretty quickly. We all know it's a smokescreen for the cultural reasons for setting up that kind of an immigration system.

I don't know if it will decrease or increase the level of immigration. Post a link if you have one.

The libertarian argument you are making (let the market control immigration) doesn't work unless you get rid all the social benefits of being a citizen (i.e., social security, welfare, etc.). If you can get rid of all of that then yeah. As Ron Paul put it:

How to tackle the real immigration problem? Eliminate incentives for those who would come here to live off the rest of us, and make it easier and more rational for those who wish to come here legally to contribute to our economy. No walls, no government databases, no biometric national ID cards. But not a penny in welfare for immigrants. It’s really that simple.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/arch...ation-problem/

Canada has a merit based immigration policy as I understand. Of course, if you have a pre-existing health condition you will never become a Canadian citizen from what I understand. They don't want sick people dragging down their single payer system apparently. So if you can convince everyone to throw immigrants "onto the streets" and not on the rolls of our social programs then what you are saying would work. Call your congressman! If someone proposed that immigration policy then I would be inclined to vote for them.

[Eddie]

Well I know it doesn't mention DUIs.

Seems to fit here OK:

(ii) any other criminal activity which endangers public safety or national security, or

Back to that public safety thing.

[Commando]

Seems to fit here OK:



Back to that public safety thing.

Trust me- it's not a violation of 237(2). It's not even considered to be a Crime Involving Moral Turpitude, of which the government needs 2 convictions to sustain deportability charges against a lawful permanent resident.

[Uncle Ted]

Frank, BK, Max... Tell me this isn't true!

OBAMA HHS PLACED MIGRANT CHILDREN INTO CUSTODY OF HUMAN TRAFFICKERS

The Obama administration handed off an unknown number of migrant minors into the custody of human traffickers under the assumption that these so-called “caregivers” were related to the children
.
In the wake of the current debate over how to handle illegal aliens who claim asylum while crossing the border with children in tow, supporters of tighter border controls point to issues related to not knowing whether the children are indeed sons and daughters of the border crossers. Previous reports say the federal government already had a poor record of placing these children in dangerous environments during the Obama administration.

The Associated Press reported two years ago that in April 2014 the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services relaxed its safety standards to promptly move migrant children out of government shelters and into sponsors’ homes when waves of illegal aliens surged across the southern border.
However, according to the AP’s reporting, the lowered standards resulted in children landing in unsafe homes where they were “sexually assaulted, starved or forced to work for little or no pay.”


The AP found almost 30 children who were placed with “caregivers” who exposed them to sexual abuse, labor trafficking, abuse or neglect.
[...]

http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/17/fl...n-traffickers/

Snopes will set the record straight... right?

Did the Obama Administration Place Immigrant Children With Human Traffickers?

A congressional report and criminal indictment resulted from a 2014 incident in which multiple immigrant children were handed off to a human trafficking ring.

TRUE

[ATTACH=CONFIG]8860[/ATTACH]
[...]

The issue of HHS’s lack of accountability for unaccompanied immigrant children came to a head in May 2018 when HHS acting assistant secretary of Administration for Children and Families Steven Wagner told a Senate oversight committee that the agency could not account for 1,475 children it had placed with sponsors from October to December 2017. The furor over that story accompanied outrage over the Trump administration’s “zero tolerance” policy, with critics raising concerns that the federal government was unnecessarily overwhelming an already-overburdened system with traumatized children.


To make matters worse, an investigation published 19 June 2018 by McClatchy revealed that the figure was only a snapshot from a three-month period and the number of children who are unaccounted for by HHS is actually nearly 6,000. The figure is likely exacerbated by an April 2018 agreement that allows background check information, including immigration status, of caregivers like parents and relatives to be shared with immigration authorities.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/di...n-traffickers/

So the government may be reuniting these kids with their abusers all thanks to yet another dumbass liberal outrage. Thanks dumbass liberals!

kkuA5HnK7kUflzlktSHBv5BCcJ958Sq0m6ZP9mB594c.jpg

[Maximus]

Frank, BK, Max... Tell me this isn't true!


http://dailycaller.com/2018/06/17/fl...n-traffickers/

Snopes will set the record straight... right?


https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/di...n-traffickers/

So the government may be reuniting these kids with their abusers all thanks to yet another dumbass liberal outrage. Thanks dumbass liberals!

[ATTACH]8861[/ATTACH]

is this an obama topic now?

Btw with all your excuses about some of the kids being without parents, i have yet to see you condemn those kids we know that were with parents being separated. for or against?

[Uncle Ted]

is this an obama topic now?

Btw with all your excuses about some of the kids being without parents, i have yet to see you condemn those kids we know that were with parents being separated. for or against?

Yeah, I am an Obamaist or Obamaism loyalist now!

BTW, did you miss this part?

In July 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted a ring of traffickers lead by Aroldo Castillo-Serrano and accused them of smuggling children into the United States. They were also accused of lying to Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) by posing as relatives in order to gain custody of children in its care and use them for forced labor in Marion, a city north of Columbus. The federal indictment, filed in U.S. district court in Ohio accuses Castillo-Serrano and his conspirators of forcing the children to live in squalid trailers and work six or seven 12-hour days a week, using threats and physical violence as coercion.

As long as the government knows for sure that the adult they are with is a parent or relative for sure then they [the kids] should be with that adult. In that case, you can put down as "for" (keeping families together). Maybe the LDS church could talk to ancestry.com and get them to donate a bunch of DNA kits or even use a little bit of all that money they made off building/leasing malls to make a donation toward the effort... you know, since the church is so pro about keeping families together and stuff.