Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Dr. Strangelove]

Trump deliberately tanks any chance of an immigration bill making it through the House. Assures them that they can just tell the public that it's the fault of Democrats that the majority-Republican House can't pass a bill.

[iam416]

What?

[iam416]

BTW, Buchanan, immigration is a vote battle. Ds see illegals as votes for; Rs see them as votes against. That's the crux. I guess it's technically racist to assume that a person will vote a certain way because of their race, but, I mean identity politics going to identity politic.

So, PDJT and the Rs may have zero tolerance for immigration. The Ds, as an NRO article put it, have zero tolerance for any sort of enforcement of immigration laws.

Which gets to the real issue -- either you think we should have immigration laws or you don't. Either side is defensible. But, if you think we should have immigration laws then the absolute, 100% follow on is that you think those law should be enforced.

Democrats actually don't think we should have any immigration laws, but they can't say that. So they simply oppose enforcement.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Talent- Trump tweeted out this morning that Republicans should just drop any bills until after the election. "Waste of time". This after promising them the compromise bill had his support just yesterday.

[iam416]

Yeah, that hardly matters, DSL. Without an iota of D support there's not chance.

I do find it hilarious that PDJT creates a shitstorm and ends the shitstorm with an Executive Order. He's pretty good at manufacturing crises (intentionally or inadvertently) and then "solving" his own crisis.

In any event, we're entirely back to Obama and Flores. Which is probably catch and release. Which gets us back to "bring a child=welcome to America". Huzzah.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I don't oppose enforcement...I oppose doing away with any sort of discretion on the part of the police, border patrol, prosecutors, legal system, etc. Which clearly exists for tons of other laws.

It's like saying I am opposed to all speed limits because I don't think cops should pull over and prosecute to the maximum allowable extent every single driver they catch going 57 in a 55 mph zone.

Of course, we'll have big disagreements if the crime of crossing illegally is considered far more serious by some people than others.

[Jeff Buchanan]

talent, if I get your point, you're offering that Trump's immigration policy is based on (mostly) securing R votes (appeal to the cultural values of whites) not a grand scheme, racist in it's goals, to slow or eliminate the erosion of white racial dominance in the US. Certainly, I think there's a relationship between the two .... i.e., secure white votes while at the same time, block the immigration of potential non-white D votes.

Either way, that's fundamentally a racist approach I would think.

[Dr. Strangelove]

And yes, even if the House passes the a bill, it was likely DOA in the Senate. But Trump is lying that it's because of the filibuster. None of the House bills being proffered have a chance of getting even a 50-50 vote in the Senate because of Republican defectors.

House Republicans have the sheer numbers to pass an immigration bill but can't because the Freedom Caucus violently fights everything but the most extreme positions. Senate Republicans couldn't pass an immigration bill without Dem support, but they aren't unified enough to pass with even a simple majority anyways.

[iam416]

I don't oppose enforcement...I oppose doing away with any sort of discretion on the part of the police, border patrol, prosecutors, legal system, etc. Which clearly exists for tons of other laws.

It's like saying I am opposed to all speed limits because I don't think cops should pull over and prosecute to the maximum allowable extent every single driver they catch going 57 in a 55 mph zone.

Of course, we'll have big disagreements if the crime of crossing illegally is considered far more serious by some people than others

.

Yeah, so immigration is fundamentally regulatory. The rules are fairly straight-forward. They can get more complicated with asylum seekers, but whatever (wrt asylum, Mexico and Canada aren't states you need to seek asylum from, so if you're seeking asylum, it's typically the closest country to your shithole country -- i.e., Mexico). But, fundamentally, they are rules in a process to obtain something. It's not like speeding, it's like taking your driver's license test. The BMV doesn't have discretion to pass you if you only get 25% because you're there with your child.

I view citizenship as absolute. I'm 100% certain you view citizenship rules as absolute going the other way (e.g., I rather doubt you have even considered giving someone discretion to say "they weren't here long enough before giving birth, so they're not "born" in the US). Your discretion *probably* (edit) runs one way.

[Dr. Strangelove]

For those who can't see Twitter:

"Trump's art of the congressional deal:

-Give mixed signals on immigration at closed-door meeting

-Insult popular congressman

-Lie publicly about the reception to the insult

-Privately urge lawmakers to pass a bill

-Wait til they commit.

-Tweet at them not to vote on bill"

[iam416]

it was likely DOA in the Senate.

Correct. Schumer is on record as saying he (and the Ds) wouldn't vote for it. A modest legislative solution to the horrors and horrors of child separation and they wouldn't vote for it.

Since Nazi comparisons are so in vogue, it's like voting against legislation ending the Holocaust because it's not perfect.

[iam416]

talent, if I get your point, you're offering that Trump's immigration policy is based on (mostly) securing R votes (appeal to the cultural values of whites) not a grand scheme, racist in it's goals, to slow or eliminate the erosion of white racial dominance in the US. Certainly, I think there's a relationship between the two .... i.e., secure white votes while at the same time, block the immigration of potential non-white D votes.

Either way, that's fundamentally a racist approach I would think.

Well, judging anyone's actions based on skin color is racist, I would think. But then racism runs both ways. It's about "demographics is destiny".

In any event, the way certain folks fight anything these days is to label it racist/sexist/whatever. It eliminates the need to defend your substantive position. That tactic is an absolute staple in the immigration debate. And I'll push back against it at every turn.

As I said, either you're for immigration laws or you're not. It's really that simple.

[Kapture1]

Feinstein's bill barred DHS, ICE, any DOJ empolyee from separating a child from an adult "at or near the port of entry or within 100 miles of the border"except in cases of abuse or neglect.

So criminal illegals could not be removed from our country for committing a crime as long as they have a child. Ports of entry are all international airports, borders are either coast, boundaries on all 4 sides, and every major metropolitan city is near a port of entry. that covers 200,000,000 Americans.


They don't want a border, they don't want to remove criminal illegals, and they end up incentivizing child trafficking and rape. And they don't really give a shit about children, this is for votes.

[Kapture1]

Correct. Schumer is on record as saying he (and the Ds) wouldn't vote for it. A modest legislative solution to the horrors and horrors of child separation and they wouldn't vote for it.

Since Nazi comparisons are so in vogue, it's like voting against legislation ending the Holocaust because it's not perfect.

Nazi fervor IMO led to a deranged democrat to bring a gun to a Congressional baseball practice last year. Attempted assassination of Republican congressional members.

Last night a radical pro illegal immigration and open borders group surrounded Nielsen's home. It's only a matter of time before one of their lunatic fringe feels he is morally obligated to take our a Nazi collaborators.

[iam416]

First, politicians politic. That's why Schumer (and the Ds) would never vote for an R bill that resolves child separation. But then you lose your point when you say they implicitly or explicitly support child trafficking and rape.

Second, crazy people exist. I find it remarkably wrong to attribute the actions of crazy people to others that are sufficiently removed from the act. On this point, I analogize to the Supreme Court's First Amendment test -- inciting imminent illegal action. Both parties blame, castigate, scapegoat, hate, etc various groups, individuals, organizations, etc. It's the game. If a crazy person runs with that it's on the crazy person.