Trump struggles with the basics on history and civics in DACA tweet

[Griever]

(02-15-2018, 01:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Ivanka’s Parents did not come via chain migration.   Her father is a USC and her mother was a primary applicant.  

———

Now you also probably meant Ivana.... which is ivanka’s mother.   And while you don’t seem to understand chain migration either.   Parents would still be able to come via the Cotton/Miller plan.   It’s the cousins, aunts, and uncles they wouldn’t be able to come.

my mistake, i meant Melania, her parents came over through chain migration

[GMDino]

(02-15-2018, 04:01 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So I should use Family Reunification?

Apparently not based on on Matt said.  Although anything would be better than something that racists prefer I suppose.

[GMDino]

(02-15-2018, 04:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Ahhh yes.  The dog whistles everyone can hear.  Someone needs to go back to the drawing board.

I mean I know it's hard to believe that subgroup like racists would prefer their own language but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

(02-15-2018, 04:05 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm glad to be educated, but who decided it?  What's the appropriate termto use until it becomes the new dog whistle.  

It evolved apparently. I suppose using anything that's not prefered by racists is ok.

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2018, 04:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: I mean I know it's hard to believe that subgroup like racists would prefer their own language but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


It evolved apparently.  I suppose using anything that's not prefered by racists is ok.

Man that sucks; as I really like Doc Martens.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-15-2018, 04:10 PM)GMDino Wrote: I mean I know it's hard to believe that subgroup like racists would prefer their own language but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.


It evolved apparently.  I suppose using anything that's not prefered by racists is ok.

You know what a dog whistle is right?  Well your metaphor falls apart due to the fact that apparently everyone can hear it.

I prefer not having racists dictate our vocabulary.  Do they know they have this power?  If they start speaking about undocumented immigrants, do we switch back to illegal aliens?

[Belsnickel]

(02-15-2018, 03:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So when the white power or whatever use this term are they using it incorrectly?  I mean, I'm sure they use a lot of terms and we really shouldn't have to change our vocabulary every time they say something.

It's not because of the white nationalists that I am suggesting this. The term is being used by a partisan side and tying it to a negative emotional appeal. Because of this, the term has become charged. They added an electron to the atom that is the word.

(02-15-2018, 03:46 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Isn’t it time we just stopped being “triggered” by everything that we don’t agree with? Back in the day when that happened we just dealt with it and moved on.... we didn’t run to an adult and cry like a baby over someone using a word.

Words only have the power we give them. If you think he chain migration monster lives under your bed then you will Be In Fear.

The link just states it’s an academic term used for years and recently got politicized because the trump administration used it? ...... so it’s a negative word because the trump administration used an academic word when describing their immigration plan? That makes zero sense.

Toughen up. (This is for the people scared of the phrase chain migration)

The mental block that is put up when politically charged words are used is not a conscious thing. It happens to you, it happens to everyone. It is a psychological phenomenon that you have to actively work against to get around. This is why language choice matters. The words we use can initiate a defensive position in the person we are having a conversation with. This is why you get the reactions you do so often. You choose politically charged language and it results in a similar reaction from others. It continues into a downward spiral until one or both people involved end up in a staff initiated timeout. This also prevents any sort of actual movement on opinions. If you want to genuinely have a conversation about the merits or lack thereof of something, then choosing less charged language will help with that. Otherwise, you are doing nothing but tilting at windmills.

[GMDino]

(02-15-2018, 04:18 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You know what a dog whistle is right?  Well your metaphor falls apart due to the fact that apparently everyone can hear it.

I prefer not having racists dictate our vocabulary.  Do they know they have this power?  If they start speaking about undocumented immigrants, do we switch back to illegal aliens?

You know that you can't hear the dog whistle but you can see it right?

They use it and then someone notices (they admit it) and you see it for what it is.

Thanks.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-15-2018, 04:24 PM)GMDino Wrote: You know that you can't hear the dog whistle but you can see it right?

They use it and then someone notices (they admit it) and you see it for what it is.

Thanks.

Or it's a terrible metaphor and someone should come up with a new one.  

[*bfine32*]

Back on the subject: It seems the only sticking point between the 2 plans thrown out there is restrictions on future immigrations. If "Trump's Plan" and the "Bi-Partisan Plan" both provide a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 mil dreamers then how can one be more protective of Dreamers than the other/

[GMDino]

(02-15-2018, 06:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Back on the subject: It seems the only sticking point between the 2 plans thrown out there is restrictions on future immigrations. If "Trump's Plan" and the "Bi-Partisan Plan" both provide a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 mil dreamers then how can one be more protective of Dreamers than the other/

Trump said he wants a bi-partisan plan...then threatens to veto it.

Then his plan can get the votes.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/15/immigration-daca-senate-412459

Quote:Senate immigration debate ends in failure
A bipartisan plan and Trump’s proposal were both defeated — leaving Dreamers in the lurch.




The Senate's drive to clinch an immigration deal sputtered to an end on Thursday, with a bipartisan and White House-blessed proposal both defeated and the Dreamers left in limbo once again.


It was a frustrating, if largely expected, conclusion to a much-hyped immigration debate this week that never really got off the ground.

And in a blow to President Donald Trump, the GOP plan to enshrine his four-part immigration framework came the furthest of any proposal from reaching the 60-vote margin needed for passage, failing by 39-60. A competing bipartisan agreement got rejected, 54-45, after a furious White House campaign to defeat it, including a Thursday veto threat.


"I think it’s safe to say this has been a disappointing week," Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on the floor after the failed series of votes.

In the end, eight Republicans joined all but three Democrats in support of the main bipartisan proposal, which would have given an estimated 1.8 million undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship while spending $25 billion on border security.


“It’s a pig in a poke,” Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), a close Trump ally, said of the bipartisan bill.


But the amendment outlining the president's proposal, which he made clear was the only option he'd support, lost 14 GOP votes while gaining support from only three red-state Democrats. The Trump-backed plan would have provided a path to citizenship for a similar pool of Dreamers but included cuts to legal immigration, along with increased border security.


“This vote is proof that President Trump’s plan will never become law," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. "If he would stop torpedoing bipartisan efforts, a good bill would pass.”


The upshot is stalemate, despite long-running negotiations, particularly among the bipartisan group of mostly moderate senators.


Two other amendments were also rejected: a narrower plan with no border wall funding from Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.) on a 52-47 vote, and a sanctuary cities measure from Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) on a 54-45 vote.


The red-state Democrats who backed Trump's plan were Sens. Joe Donnelly of Indiana, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Joe Manchin of West Virginia. The eight Republicans who supported the centrist proposal were Sens. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Susan Collins of Maine, Jeff Flake of Arizona, Cory Gardner of Colorado, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Mike Rounds of South Dakota.


McConnell and Schumer opened the day with a round of partisan sniping, signaling the probable failure of both the Trump framework and the bipartisan plan.

“Remember: Democrats wanted this debate," McConnell said on the Senate floor. "They shut down the federal government for 300 million Americans — unnecessarily — to guarantee we could have this debate at this time."


Echoing conservatives' complaints, the White House veto threat against the bipartisan agreement singled out its language directing enforcement officers, when it comes to the removal of undocumented immigrants who have broken no other laws, to prioritize individuals who arrive in the country after June 30, 2018. That policy would "produce a flood of new illegal immigration in the coming months," the White House warned.


The Trump administration had stepped up its resistance to the bipartisan immigration amendment overnight, with the Department of Homeland Security releasing a harsh comment blasting it as "an egregious violation of" the president's four-part framework that would create "mass amnesty."


Graham, a supporter of the bipartisan proposal, slammed DHS on Thursday for "acting less like a partner and more like an adversary."


"Instead of offering thoughts and advice — or even constructive criticism — they are acting more like a political organization intent on poisoning the well," Graham said in a statement.


A DHS official said that according to internal analyses, the bill could actually give a pathway to citizenship for more than 3 million young immigrants.


The White House has been telling Republican senators that it expects the Supreme Court to overturn the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling extending protections for undocumented immigrants under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. The implication is that what is now an indefinite grace period would quickly disappear — and that Democrats would be without leverage and forced to accept more Republican demands in order to codify DACA.


The bipartisan plan also faced grumbling from liberal Democrats, who remained publicly undecided throughout the day on Thursday. After the minority met as a group to discuss its options late Wednesday, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) acknowledged that "we have a number of Democrats who do not like" key elements of the bipartisan group's proposal.

Other Democrats "do not like limiting the opportunity for citizenship for Dreamer parents, and they're unhappy with the wall" money, acknowledged Durbin, who has spent more than 15 years working toward a solution for the Dreamer population.


Still, only three Democrats ultimately voted against it: Sens. Martin Heinrich and Tom Udall of New Mexico, and Sen. Kamala Harris of California, all of whom cited the hefty infusion for Trump's border wall in explaining their “no” votes.



Flake, a supporter of the bipartisan language, acknowledged the plan might still fall short even as Democratic leaders won over many of their skeptics. It "can get 60," he told reporters Wednesday, but "I'm not sure it will."

[StLucieBengal]

(02-15-2018, 10:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: Trump said he wants a bi-partisan plan...then threatens to veto it.

Then his plan can get the votes.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/15/immigration-daca-senate-412459

He goes into the mid terms with a majority of the country who support his version of immigration. Going to be a hard turn for the democrat senators running. And with some of the progressive GOP leaving we have a chance to get some tough on immigration people in there.

[*bfine32*]

(02-15-2018, 10:52 PM)GMDino Wrote: Trump said he wants a bi-partisan plan...then threatens to veto it.

Then his plan can get the votes.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/15/immigration-daca-senate-412459

Not exactly sure why you quoted my post to share that; as it did not answer the question posed. How is one of the two plans that provide a pathway to citizenship for the same amount of dreamers protect them more than another? 

As I said, the only substantial difference in the 2 proposals in concerning future immigration. Yet the left (Schumer) keeps up the mantra of Trump doesn't want to protect dreamers.  

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2018, 06:24 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Back on the subject: It seems the only sticking point between the 2 plans thrown out there is restrictions on future immigrations. If "Trump's Plan" and the "Bi-Partisan Plan" both provide a pathway to citizenship for 1.8 mil dreamers then how can one be more protective of Dreamers than the other/

I don't think it was rejected because it was not as protective of the dreamers (although it was more protective of dreamers parents).

I am pretty sure it was rejected for other reasons like the money for the wall and the changes in legal immigration.

[fredtoast]

(02-15-2018, 11:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: As I said, the only substantial difference in the 2 proposals in concerning future immigration. Yet the left (Schumer) keeps up the mantra of Trump doesn't want to protect dreamers.  

The money for the wall is a big difference.  Trump is holding the protection of the dreamers hostage.

If a police officer says he will only protect you if you pay him $1000 then it is fair to say he does not want to protect you.

[BmorePat87]

(02-15-2018, 11:34 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Not exactly sure why you quoted my post to share that; as it did not answer the question posed. How is one of the two plans that provide a pathway to citizenship for the same amount of dreamers protect them more than another? 

As I said, the only substantial difference in the 2 proposals in concerning future immigration. Yet the left (Schumer) keeps up the mantra of Trump doesn't want to protect dreamers.  

If he were to veto a bill identical to his but lacking border wall funding, you could make the argument that he doesn't care about them and is using them as a concession for his wall.

I wouldn't claim Democrats support a wall just because they vote for a compromise bill that includes it along with protections for Dreamers.


But to address your first question, how could one bill be more protective than the other if they're identical in that aspect? One couldn't be. There's no argument to make that one protects the them more than the other in this scenario. The bill itself is without motive. The motive comes in how the individual legislators vote and in the action of the executive.

[*bfine32*]

(02-16-2018, 12:31 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The money for the wall is a big difference.  Trump is holding the protection of the dreamers hostage.

If a police officer says he will only protect you if you pay him $1000 then it is fair to say he does not want to protect you.

From what I read both bills provide funding for the wall. The current sticking issue as I read it is that Trump wants total immigration reform and the bipartisan just wants to address the dreamers.

[Belsnickel]

So, to clarify, the differences between Trump's preferred bill and the bipartisan deal are that the bipartisan deal spread the money for the wall out over ten years and didn't change legal immigration systems. The bipartisan deal that could have passed both chambers had the veto threat not been levied would have provided money for border security (including the wall) and gave a path to permanent residency to "Dreamers."

It's sad to me that they were unable to make this happen.

[*bfine32*]

(02-16-2018, 10:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, to clarify, the differences between Trump's preferred bill and the bipartisan deal are that the bipartisan deal spread the money for the wall out over ten years and didn't change legal immigration systems. The bipartisan deal that could have passed both chambers had the veto threat not been levied would have provided money for border security (including the wall) and gave a path to permanent residency to "Dreamers."

It's sad to me that they were unable to make this happen.

So it seems I was reading correctly. The difference between the 2 is trump's wanted total immigration reform and the bi-partisan only wants to address the dreamers.

My thoughts on this have not changed and fortunately it seems both plans are trending in that direction. I've always said if you were brought here as a minor and have proven to be a "good citizen' then you should have a pathway to citizenship; however, if you knowingly came here illegally as an adult: sorry about your luck.

[Belsnickel]

(02-16-2018, 11:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: So it seems I was reading correctly. The difference between the 2 is trump's wanted total immigration reform and the bi-partisan only wants to address the dreamers.

Not quite. The bipartisan bill also addressed border security, so it focused on reducing illegal immigration as well. The big difference was the changes to legal immigration such as the diversity lottery and family-based migration.

(02-16-2018, 11:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: My thoughts on this have not changed and fortunately it seems both plans are trending in that direction. I've always said if you were brought here as a minor and have proven to be a "good citizen' then you should have a pathway to citizenship; however, if you knowingly came here illegally as an adult: sorry about your luck.

Indeed. I will say that I was a big fan of the USA Act, which also failed in the Senate. It provided temporary legal status to "Dreamers" that were here when the original law was kicked around, and gave them a few years to complete one of three options to obtain permanent resident status: two years post-secondary education (to include trade schools), one term of enlistment in the military, or an employment requirement that I can't remember off the top of my head. Then, with permanent resident status, they would be treated as any other green card holder and have the whole five year thing to become a citizen.

The bill also provided funding for border security, specifically to assess what would be most effective in certain areas as well. The border has a lot of variation in it and so there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the entire stretch of the border. I mean, the Sonoran Desert is a natural barrier that, while people do still cross it to get here, acts as a major deterrent.

[StLucieBengal]

The ridiculous court stay on the DACA ending order that trump signed ruined he deal.

They won’t work together unless they have a gun to their head. Another case of the court overreaching. They need to impeach several federal judges. DACA isn’t even constitutional yet the court defends it lol.

Impeach these fools.