• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Family Separation at the Border: US citizens are now being detained

Did nothing to solve what problem, exactly? In your own words, what harms are chain migration causing that would support it being a priority the government should focus on fixing, let alone one that is serious enough that people are literally supporting putting kids in camps as a bargaining chip if they don’t get their way.
 
LOL. I stated that "there was a period between 2008 & 2010 when the Democrats controlled all three branches."


Then you replied with this:

This is false. Dems controlled all three from late Jan. 2009-July/August 2010. Learn some history rather than lying about it.


I ask you....Is Jan 2009 - July/August 2010 not a period between 2008 & 2010? Where was I lying or not knowing history in my statement?

Man, you are totally dishonest. At no time in 2008 did the Dems have all three as is part of your time frame, nor did they have control after August 2010.
 
So why is family reunification bad?

Bob thinks it's OK for Trump's family and Melania's family to use "chain migration", but then again, they are white.

As to the wall, it's moronic and ineffective on so many levels. First of all, it won't work unless we build a 2000 mile, 20 story, electrified wall. Next, it will entail stealing land from Americans at pennies on the dollar. There are also large tracts owned by Native Nations who have said they will not all a wall to be built on their lands. Thus, there will be vast holes in the wall. If you are worried about criminals crossing illegally, does anyone actually believe Ms-13, the Zetas or other cartels send people they want to work for them across deserts? Or do you think they get passports and enter the US legally as tourists and simply stay?

"Merit-based immigration". First of all this does exist. There are all sorts of programs for this. But the style Trump wants is so that we can deny entry to black and brown people.
 
Man, you are totally dishonest. At no time in 2008 did the Dems have all three as is part of your time frame, nor did they have control after August 2010.

Goddamn, you're dumb, RJ. All I said was that there was a period between 2008 & 2010 when the Democrats controlled all three branches. I didn't say that they controlled them the entire time.

How dumb can a person be to say that statement was false....then affirm that it was true in the very next sentence....then tell the person who made the statement that you just affirmed was true in the very next sentence to stop lying & learn some history? Then, after the absolute ridiculousness of that reply, to come back with an even more ridiculous response?

Do you seriously not understand that the period from Jan 2009 thru Aug 2010 was "between 2008 & 2010"?

If you were not a brain-fried druggie maybe you could think more clearly.
 
Last edited:
It's how dishonest you can be. Your clear intention was that the Dems controlled all three branches for the entire period or you would have specified the actual time they did control all three.

You are as transparent as a contact lens in your BS. To think you can convince us otherwise is delusional.

You still addressed how full of shit your statements about MS-13 coming across the border and others using kids that weren't theirs to gain access to the US are. According to the sources I provided, they found 1/50th of 1% of crossings with kids to be fraudulent. This means they find ONE case in every 5000 families that cross with kids. Your position is preposterous and blind.
 
It's how dishonest you can be. Your clear intention was that the Dems controlled all three branches for the entire period or you would have specified the actual time they did control all three.

You are as transparent as a contact lens in your BS. To think you can convince us otherwise is delusional.

You still addressed how full of shit your statements about MS-13 coming across the border and others using kids that weren't theirs to gain access to the US are. According to the sources I provided, they found 1/50th of 1% of crossings with kids to be fraudulent. This means they find ONE case in every 5000 families that cross with kids. Your position is preposterous and blind.

The bolded statement is pure bullshit. A desperate attempt at damage control after you made a complete fucking fool out of yourself.....again.
 
It's kinda like when you try to stretch your work experience to cover an entire year when you got hired in November. We all definitely have 5 - 8 years of experience after 3 and a half years.
 
There was a period of time between 1942 and 2017 that RandlemanChaletBKF committed first degree homicide of his Father In Law.
 
its mystifying how the illegal immigration issue gets some Americans so angry and motivated, yet the dozen or so more important issues facing America that directly effect their lives negatively don't move the needle. What a bunch of dumb fucks. This SwissChalet guy is a perfect example. Look at all the energy and effort he puts into his little articles and personal vendettas over this shit, and it barely effects his life at all, except for maybe the inexpensive landscaping and clean hotel rooms.
 
The Tunnels is proof that at some point an inverse relationship develops between the cost to attend a university and the common sense, intelligence & maturity of the people it attracts to go there.
 
The Tunnels is proof that at some point an inverse relationship develops between the cost to attend a university and the common sense, intelligence & maturity of the people it attracts to go there.

Says the guy who left the boards , promised never to return, and just a few short months later is back posting under a different name. What a little bitch.
 
The Tunnels is proof that at some point an inverse relationship develops between the cost to attend a university and the common sense, intelligence & maturity of the people it attracts to go there.

Just don't get why you continue to pound on cost to attend Wake. Its irrelevant to all arguments. If you're accepted and want to pay that's fine. If not go the fuck somewhere else.
 
https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/17/democrats-dont-want-a-daca-compromise/

According to Democrats, they want nothing more than to fix the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which President Donald Trump rescinded in early September due to it being unconstitutional. The registration program was a temporary fix to one of the country’s many significant immigration problems. It supposedly deferred immigration actions against people brought into the country illegally as minors but who have been here for quite some some time. But it was a bad fix because of how it was done — via executive action instead of the legislature. Courts had already determined similar program for different classes of immigrants to be unconstitutional. According to the U.S. Constitution, presidents are to execute the laws passed by the legislative branch.

When Trump rescinded the program and told Congress to do its job of passing legislation to address the problem, Democrats screamed. President Obama wrote a dramatic Facebook post that didn’t address the little problem that his supposed temporary fix wasn’t a great solution. Months later, there is still no resolution. Democrats claim to want amnesty for DACA recipients. At least some Republicans claim to want to fix the problems that lead to never-ending streams of non-citizens clamoring for amnesty, such as a porous border and irregular enforcement of the law. The Trump administration and some Republicans seek to end an incoherent immigration policy that is unbound to the needs of the country, particularly the needs of the non-elite portions of the country. All of these competing desires make now seem like a prime opportunity for an immigration compromise.

Early last week, President Trump hosted a cordial negotiation that made the compromise seem possible. But is it true that Democrats are willing to work toward a DACA compromise? They were unwilling to offer any concessions to get it — no wall, no drawdown of random visa lotteries, no de-emphasis on chain migration, no move to a Canadian- or Australian-style merit immigration system. In fact, one of their proposals would actually expand chain migration, by which family members can get an easier path to U.S. residency and citizenship than other applicants. Also, that refusal to make concessions was before Sen. Dick Durbin blew up negotiations by leaking an out-of-context mean word about countries from which the United States brings in winners of random visa lotteries. If Democrats truly wanted to fix the problem of adults who arrived in the country illegally as minors, they probably would have passed something early in the Obama presidency when they also controlled the House and Senate. They had from 2008 to 2010 to do whatever they pleased.

And if Democrats truly wanted to fix the problems caused by lax borders, border security, and enforcement, they would be on board with each of those measures on the table now. Not fixing holes in the border, whether real or metaphorical, turns the issue into the new debt limit battle, in which fixes are required every few years.
DACA recipients are one of the smallest and easily the most popular group of the massive number of illegal residents of the country. Given that Democrats claim to want to help this popular group, why in the world would they not?
Let’s first revisit the narrative of the previous week or so.

Last week Durbin leaked that President Trump used a very mean word disparaging some countries from which the United States accepts many immigrants randomly, as opposed to purposefully. Immediately the Resistance — be they the media, Democratic activists, or ever-impotent members of the Republican establishment — stepped up to wail and freak out. The talking point immediately became that disparaging some third-world countries is obviously racist. Not to be the dung in the punch bowl, but the context of Trump’s remarks, which ranged from in dispute to absent, is necessary before making such a claim with wild abandon. That’s because if Trump wants merit-based immigration, and he does, it doesn’t matter what type of country one comes from, but what type of candidate the individual applicant is. Under his plan, candidates would be ranked on their education, skills, language, and chance for success, not what type of country they come from.

If Trump was defending his decision to end temporary immigration status for people who were escaping 2001 earthquakes or other problems, it wouldn’t make sense for him to refer to those places as s***holes while also saying they have to go back. In fact, people who oppose returning El Salvadoreans say we can’t do it precisely because, well, it’s not a nice place to go back to. Presumably, then, he was arguing against random visa lotteries that privilege certain countries or against the overuse of chain migration, at the expense of an immigration policy that meets the needs of current U.S. citizens, particularly those who are not economically privileged. But that’s a difficult thing to discuss. It’s easier for our elites in both parties and the media to grandstand and pose than to worry about the long-term economic, security, legal, and national sovereignty effects of a thoughtless immigration system.

The media weren’t interested in understanding the context of the remarks, just pushing the narrative that if you disparage certain countries you are obviously racist and all virtuous and well-meaning people in politics are disgusted by it. It was almost tailor-made for the completely hysterical Resistance of 2018. It allows people to cast Trump as a racist villain while simultaneously casting themselves as the virtuous heros standing up for the poor huddled masses.

It also enables people to blame Trump for the lack of a deal. Here’s The New York Times, for instance:

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s incendiary words about immigration have dampened the prospects that a broad spending and immigration deal can be reached by the end of the week, raising the possibility of a government shutdown with unknown political consequences for lawmakers in both parties.
It’s an interesting story, but it neglects the obvious point that the out-of-context leak was designed to dampen the prospects of an immigration compromise. You may want to sit down for this, but sometimes people care more about profiting from a problem than solving a problem. What if Democrats are using DACA recipients as human shields for their own electoral plans in November, and to get increased voter intensity, higher political donations, and greater turnout in upcoming elections?

It’s the Left’s Obamacare Repeal

Democrats could reasonably say they learned this from Republicans, who long claimed they wanted to help people burdened by Obamacare. Republicans said all they wanted to do was repeal Obamacare but couldn’t do it because they had no power. So voters gave them the House, at which point they said they needed the Senate, too. Republicans took control of the Senate, then said they couldn’t repeal Obamacare with just Congress, they needed the White House as well. Now they have all these things and still have not repealed Obamacare. But they do have the audacity to tell voters that what they really need is a stronger majority in the Senate. One might be forgiven for surmising they care less about repealing Obamacare than they care about power.

Risky But High-Reward Strategy

In that New York Times story above, Sen. Claire McCaskill has some interesting quotes. Here’s one:

‘Welcome to our world,’ said Senator Claire McCaskill, Democrat of Missouri, who is running for re-election in a state that Mr. Trump carried by 19 percentage points.
‘We’ve got people running for president all trying to find their base, and then you’ve got people from Trump states that are trying to continue to legislate the way we always have — by negotiation,’ Ms. McCaskill said. “And never the twain shall meet.’

The article identifies senators Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York as Democratic presidential contenders willing to shut down government to show their commitment to DACA. Meanwhile, ten of the Democratic senators up for re-election are in situations like McCaskill’s, where shutting down the government over DACA might not be viewed as favorably as it is in the salons and media establishments of DC and New York. Still, it’s a strategy with some sense. The last thing Democrats want is for Trump to solve any of the problems he was elected to address. The 2017 elections in Virginia and Alabama are Democrats’ blueprint for 2018, which is to increase Democratic voter intensity while capitalizing on Republican malaise. This is a recipe for a Democratic tidal wave. What better way to use your party’s identity politics toolbox to increase rage and anger among important minority demographics than to get people spun up about Trump calling ancestral countries s—holes?

What Should Republicans Do?

Here’s what Republicans shouldn’t do: fall for every media distraction designed to keep the conversation away from fixing immigration problems. The s—show was a huge success for the Resistance, granted. That so many people who are ostensibly supposed to advance conservative policies and achieve conservative victories fell for the spin is bad news for Republicans. Republicans should get wise and stop acting naive. The New York Times story acknowledges that Democrats would be responsible for any government shutdown due to their recalcitrance on DACA concessions. But in the same story Sen. Lindsay Graham impotently says that Republicans would be blamed for any shutdown. Indeed, they would be, particularly when their supposed leaders don’t know enough about how to play politics and stay on message about priorities and responsibility.

Swiss miss sex chalet bob, your story has more holes in it than your cheese. The Democrats offered Trump his damn wall. A fourth century solution to a 21st century problem. What does it feel like to know that your entire belief system is based on lies people told you to use you? It must make you terribly angry. I am sorry you had to experience such trauma.
 
Sure Democrats could have done something about immigration a decade ago but prioritized other issues (health care).

Can you provide one example of Democrats offering concessions (on any topic, not just immigration) where the GOP then took those concessions and crafted a bi-partisan bill?
 
The Tunnels is proof that at some point an inverse relationship develops between the cost to attend a university and the common sense, intelligence & maturity of the people it attracts to go there.

LOl I didn't go to wake and Im still 10 times the man and citizen you ever were or will be, and I crush you in all facets of human life - intelligence, maturity, work ethic, effectiveness, dignity, egalitarianism, taste, virility, brute strength, masculinity, and sense of humor.
 
The Tunnels is proof that at some point an inverse relationship develops between the cost to attend a university and the common sense, intelligence & maturity of the people it attracts to go there.

Then, I should be very, very close to the top of your list for common sense.
 
Last edited:
This really isn't a GOP vs. Dem issue. The principle is a simple one of ethical treatment of others. If you are going to arrest parents trying to get into the country with their kids who are not otherwise in some sort of jeopardy (e.g. - abuse, being subjected to traffic, etc), find a way to hold the entire family together. Pointing out who was in control of what and when and what policy was at X time vs. Y time is pointless and dumb. We are in the here and now.

The admin is absolutely within the law to take a zero tolerance policy on illegal immigration. You can argue whether that should be their stance, but it is a rational position to take relative to the law. Crap, Canada does not generally accept asylum seekers coming into the country from the U.S. and Mexico isn't taking these immigrants on the same basis. But that isn't the point.

The point is no matter how you enforce against illegal immigration don't separate kids from their families. Putting that into practice no doubt comes with complications case to case. But for craps sake, that's the guiding and over arching principle. And the fact this admin didn't think that through when altering how they enforce the law was a total fucking miss. The fact they are deflecting blame for that huge miss onto others is bush league.
 
Back
Top