The Trump Presidency

[Julio3000]

So why don't you want to help legal aliens who came here when they were 6?

Their emotional circumstances are exactly the same.

That's political bull****.

Also bull**** is presenting opposition to CIR as centering around the plight of legal immigrants.

As for 2007, my recollection was that D opposition mostly centered on the guest-worker program. So, sure, call it a missed opportunity if you like, but it seems silly not to grapple with the reason for the failure of subsequent efforts, and to call it out for what it is.

 

[Hawk]

i do

i have told you multiple times in the last couple posts that i do

hell, it was in the post you quoted with me saying i don't see why we have to pick and choose one or the other. i'm fine helping both

So why do you think illegal aliens deserve priority in the form of legislation? Because that's what this is.

 

[goldfly]

So why do you think illegal aliens deserve priority in the form of legislation? Because that's what this is.

http://www.chopcountry.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6075&page=436&p=428997&viewfull=1#post428997

i mean, are you just trying to go round in circles for no reason?

let me try make this clear: DO ****ING BOTH

 

[Hawk]

Also bull**** is presenting opposition to CIR as centering around the plight of legal immigrants.

As for 2007, my recollection was that D opposition mostly centered on the guest-worker program. So, sure, call it a missed opportunity if you like, but it seems silly not to grapple with the reason for the failure of subsequent efforts, and to call it out for what it is.

Whoa, nelly. Opposing DACA is not tantamount to opposing immigration reform.

I think 2007 was more about waiting for that (D) in 2009. Just like I think 2013 was about waiting for that (R) in 2016.

That's just me. But I'm not obsessing over the partisan angle here. I just think there's a right way to go about legislating immigration reform and a wrong way. I think DACA, especially as an isolated EO, was the wrong way.

 

[goldfly]

I think DACA, especially as an isolated EO, was the wrong way.

And it only happened by EO because.....?

 

[Hawk]

http://www.chopcountry.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6075&page=436&p=428997&viewfull=1#post428997

i mean, are you just trying to go round in circles for no reason?

let me try make this clear: DO ****ING BOTH

Do you not understand that DACA only caters to illegal aliens?

Like, a legal alien couldn't apply for DACA?

Instead, a legal alien has to apply to join a lottery (after being given 90 days to find a job and a company that will pay ~$10K to sponsor them) and then ... maybe.

DACA rocks. For illegals. But you think they're more important, so, whatever.

Bleeding heart something something.

 

[Hawk]

And it only happened by EO because.....?

Because Obama wanted Hillary to win in 2016 (fact check: she didn't).

 

[Hawk]

Sometimes it's to **** on it—which, in proper proportion, is good for fertility.

Yeah, but ****ting on a burger wouldn't have worked as well.

 

[Julio3000]

No, I'm comparing people who were LEGALLY transported to the US as minors, who are faced with H1B/OPT regulations, fees, and a ****ing LOTTERY, with people who were ILLEGALLY transported to the US as minors, who are gifted a work permit in exchange for paying $500 every two years.

Spitting in hamburgers, yeah? A willing and malevolent act.

And again, all I ask, is fairness to legal immigrants closest to the hearts of people who have torpedoed both DACA and past efforts at CIR?

 

[Hawk]

Spitting in hamburgers, yeah? A willing and malevolent act.

And again, all I ask, is fairness to legal immigrants closest to the hearts of people who have torpedoed both DACA and past efforts at CIR?

Oh Jesus Julio, please spare me the moral prerogative honeypot today.

I'm just _personally_ advocating for immigration reform that doesn't **** good people.

 

[Julio3000]

Whoa, nelly. Opposing DACA is not tantamount to opposing immigration reform.

I think 2007 was more about waiting for that (D) in 2009. Just like I think 2013 was about waiting for that (R) in 2016.

That's just me. But I'm not obsessing over the partisan angle here. I just think there's a right way to go about legislating immigration reform and a wrong way. I think DACA, especially as an isolated EO, was the wrong way.

Ok, so why defend trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube instead of waiting for the courts to decide it?

And why try to blur the fact that the most bipartisan attempt at CIR was short-circuited by a coterie of nativists in the House?

 

[Julio3000]

Oh Jesus Julio, please spare me the moral prerogative honeypot today.

I'm just _personally_ advocating for immigration reform that doesn't **** good people.

Good on you then. Very admirable position. Very ****ty analogy. Very interesting parsing of who the "good people" are.

 

[goldfly]

I don't get how you aren't getting that I am saying help both

I get DACA helps illegal immigrants that had no say in coming here since most were toddlers but I digress

Help daca and help your scenario.

I want both to be helped

For **** sake

 

[Hawk]

Ok, so why defend trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube instead of waiting for the courts to decide it?

And why try to blur the fact that the most bipartisan attempt at CIR was short-circuited by a coterie of nativists in the House?

I would have actually preferred the courts intervene here, but I'm not a political strategist. Obviously, the White House thinks they can use DACA as a bargaining chip. I would have let the courts strike it down and then crafted a new bill.

And I'm not trying to obfuscate reform efforts in 2013, I just don't know that they are relevant in assessing whether DACA, alone, in 2017, is productive/worthwhile/fair policy.

 

[Hawk]

I don't get how you aren't getting that I am saying help both

I get DACA helps illegal immigrants that had no say in coming here since most were toddlers but I digress

Help daca and help your scenario.

I want both to be helped

For **** sake

I understand that's what you are saying, but I'm asking you to inspect the realities of the situation.

 

[Hawk]

Good on you then. Very admirable position. Very ****ty analogy. Very interesting parsing of who the "good people" are.

The dichotomy is straight-forward. Legal or illegal. If it makes you feel better and more politically earnest, we can say good or gooder.

At the end of the day, the gooder are being screwed by the implementation of policy like DACA.

I don't see how you can dispute that, and I don't see how you can defend it either.

 

[57Brave]

I asked this before but when did Dems become the party of cheap labor for big business?

And I told you before (D) has a tradition of being the party of underpaid (cheap) labor.

Read a book on the New Deal
Francis Perkins

 

[Julio3000]

The dichotomy is straight-forward. Legal or illegal. If it makes you feel better and more politically earnest, we can say good or gooder.

At the end of the day, the gooder are being screwed by the implementation of policy like DACA.

I don't see how you can dispute that, and I don't see how you can defend it either.

As a basic adherent to the hackneyed but reasonable "work hard and play by the rules" formulation, I don't disagree with you. I also don't see how, for example, Sessions''s profoundly dishonest rationale for rescinding DACA has anything to do with what you're talking about. I get it, you're stating a personal opinion, but you're also, by extension, continuing to carry water for some policy decisions that are even worse than the ones that you're making good-faith objections to. If you really think this is a good first step to justice and fairness for all involved, I'm interested to hear how you come about that position.

 

[goldfly]

[tw]905143904172957697[/tw]

 

[jpx7]

So why don't you want to help legal aliens who came here when they were 6?

Their emotional circumstances are exactly the same.

That's political bull****.

I am, as a rule, against means-testing for social support (I don't care, or think it's worth any progressive's worry, if a few rich kids receive paid-for public university education, or one of every ten $500k+ earner opts for government healthcare). However, I don't think it's trivial to note that most six-year-olds brought to the US illegally likely arrived from a place of, and in a state of, much greater economic hardship than those arriving legally. That may not change your mind or heart on this matter, but it is a material and emotional difference in circumstance.