The Trump Presidency

[Hawk]

"Amnesty for millions" is a significant enough distortion in this context to be reasonably called objectively untrue.

So you are comfortable asserting that the Democrats have not asked for amnesty for Dreamers as a part of the ongoing negotiations?

[Hawk]

Shoes fitting, something something, bro.

I’m just trying to establish a baseline.

[Hawk]

The latter is much more viable than the former, so the former merits more assailing. Simple as that.

If by viable you mean trite, then I agree.

[Hawk]

No, I'd rather not play the game of calling Democrats out for posturing and gamesmanship while ignoring the rank nativism and outright racism that's in such evidence on the other side of the debate right now.

People taking the kind of position you example here are precisely the reason why we can’t have nice policies in this country.

But back to your regularly scheduled name calling and side swiping (as predicted in my original post, shockingly enough).

[thethe]

https://www.conservativereview.com/a...ime-nightmare/

More of what most of us already know.

We are often told that “dreamers” are a cut above the rest of the illegal population, and President Trump, who otherwise understands the truth on the broader issue, seems to have accepted this premise. Lott’s research found that although DACA-age illegals compose 0.81 percent of Arizona’s population, they represent 8 percent of the prison population. This means they compose 71.2 percent of the illegal immigrant population in prison and that they are 884 percent more likely to be convicted of crimes than non-immigrants of their age. If anything, “dreamers” are actually a bigger public safety risk than older illegal immigrants.

We absolutely need to make sure all DACA recipients become citizens!!!!


While we have our own violent crime problem in America, the number of our violent criminals from other countries should be zero. That is because we should never bring in anyone who is violent, and those who manage to get in or commit crimes after being legally admitted should immediately be deported. Citizens, of course, cannot be deported. But immigration is a choice by we the people. So why are we electing to turn out country into a dumping ground?

Such an obvious point. How any immigrant who commits a violent crime is still allowed in this country is a slap in the face of every American.

[The Chosen One]

https://www.conservativereview.com/a...ime-nightmare/

More of what most of us already know.

We are often told that “dreamers” are a cut above the rest of the illegal population, and President Trump, who otherwise understands the truth on the broader issue, seems to have accepted this premise. Lott’s research found that although DACA-age illegals compose 0.81 percent of Arizona’s population, they represent 8 percent of the prison population. This means they compose 71.2 percent of the illegal immigrant population in prison and that they are 884 percent more likely to be convicted of crimes than non-immigrants of their age. If anything, “dreamers” are actually a bigger public safety risk than older illegal immigrants.

We absolutely need to make sure all DACA recipients become citizens!!!!


While we have our own violent crime problem in America, the number of our violent criminals from other countries should be zero. That is because we should never bring in anyone who is violent, and those who manage to get in or commit crimes after being legally admitted should immediately be deported. Citizens, of course, cannot be deported. But immigration is a choice by we the people. So why are we electing to turn out country into a dumping ground?

Such an obvious point. How any immigrant who commits a violent crime is still allowed in this country is a slap in the face of every American.

This is one of DACA's requirements

"Have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety."


So how does your post override what the actual rules for DACA are?

[thethe]

This is one of DACA's requirements

"Have not been convicted of a felony, a significant misdemeanor, three or more other misdemeanors, and do not otherwise pose a threat to national security or public safety."


So how does your post override what the actual rules for DACA are?

I would direct you to the people that provided the data because that seems to be directly opposed ot the findings.

Edit: There is an obvious inference that the age of the illegals in prison population coincide with the DACA age illegals. I think that with this population, as with any population in statistical analysis, allows extrapolation when said population is relatively homogeneous.

[The Chosen One]

I would direct you to the people that provided the data because that seems to be directly opposed ot the findings.

Straight from the DACA website. So if they're in prison how are they currently in school or meet the requirement of no felonies or multiple misdemeanors.

[thethe]

This is my edit from the above post:

Edit: There is an obvious inference that the age of the illegals in prison population coincide with the DACA age illegals. I think that with this population, as with any population in statistical analysis, allows extrapolation when said population is relatively homogeneous.

[Julio3000]

People taking the kind of position you example here are precisely the reason why we can’t have nice policies in this country.

But back to your regularly scheduled name calling and side swiping (as predicted in my original post, shockingly enough).

Dude. We had an immigration deal a few years ago. Which deal, and the bipartisan approach that led to it, I supported. It passed the Senate and tanked in the House because of the Freedom Caucus. It's that undeniably nativist hardline component that I decry, then and now. In that case, this is not expedient political posturing, this is just the party of "no."

Seriously, piss off with that noise. I'd be willing to do a CIR deal that was Way, way outside my personal policy preferences, and have always advocated thusly.

[Julio3000]

So you are comfortable asserting that the Democrats have not asked for amnesty for Dreamers as a part of the ongoing negotiations?

A conditional legal path to citizenship for some DACA recipients--of which there are about 700,000--is neither "amnesty" nor "for millions." So, yeah, that's a crap talking point.

[thethe]

A conditional legal path to citizenship for some DACA recipients--of which there are about 700,000--is neither "amnesty" nor "for millions." So, yeah, that's a crap talking point.

It could end up being that unless chain migration is eliminated.

[Hawk]

Dude. We had an immigration deal a few years ago. Which deal, and the bipartisan approach that led to it, I supported. It passed the Senate and tanked in the House because of the Freedom Caucus. It's that undeniably nativist hardline component that I decry, then and now. In that case, this is not expedient political posturing, this is just the party of "no."

Seriously, piss off with that noise. I'd be willing to do a CIR deal that was Way, way outside my personal policy preferences, and have always advocated thusly.

I'm talking about why you seem unable to have a civilized conversation about immigration policy/reform without resorting to tossing about terms like 'nativist' and 'racist'. That's rank bull****.

I'm not talking about a few years ago. I don't particularly care about Congresses past because their relevancy to the current situation, legislation, and composition/mood of the nation is tenuous - at best.

Now I get it, you have a chip on your shoulder. If we're wanting to honestly talk about 'noise' here, then that's what it is.

[Hawk]

A conditional legal path to citizenship for some DACA recipients--of which there are about 700,000--is neither "amnesty" nor "for millions." So, yeah, that's a crap talking point.

Well, it's crap when you posit it as dishonestly as you just did, sure.

[Julio3000]

So I can't say "nativist" in an environment where the signature line in the recent election was "we're going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it"?

Ok. Since we're serious, pragmatic policy people now who are busy policing the terms of the debate, I'd submit that using the word "amnesty" as deployed is not consistent with any good-faith desire to do a comprehensive reform deal.

All the sewage that floats through this thread about immigration--like thethe's crime schtick--but you're going to call the tone police on me.

[thethe]

So I can't say "nativist" in an environment where the signature line in the recent election was "we're going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it"?

Ok. Since we're serious, pragmatic policy people now who are busy policing the terms of the debate, I'd submit that using the word "amnesty" as deployed is not consistent with any good-faith desire to do a comprehensive reform deal.

All the sewage that floats through this thread about immigration--like thethe's crime schtick--but you're going to call the tone police on me.

I don't have a sanctimonious tone in my posts. I see the inhumanity in a lot of what I post however when I weigh the good with the bad I think I am on the just side.

[Hawk]

I'd submit that using the word "amnesty" as deployed is not consistent with any good-faith desire to do a comprehensive reform deal.

Why?

[thethe]

For those of you that support DACA and a more broad 'amnesty' of illegals...Would enacting this type of policy hurt anyone?

[jpx7]

I know you will. Putting potential voters ahead of current voters for the sake of pushing your radical ideology on the masses.

lol

You are so lost.

[thethe]

lol

You are so lost.

You have actually backed off of describing your true beliefs and have chosen to profess a more mainstream viewpoint on your core issues. I know where you stand and I think your history shows the same. Call me inhumane for my stance on many issues thats fine. You support a far more destructive ideology and that has been proven historically.