It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

How to destroy DACA and the innocent

page: 1
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+8 more 
posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   
I have been watching the DACA issue with some interest, and I am not liking what I am seeing.

A little background for those who have not been following:

President Obama enacted DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) on June 15th, 2012. The program, implemented solely by Executive Order without any action from Congress, specified that immigrants who had arrived in the United States before the age of 16, and who had either completed high school (GED was satisfactory) or were attending school, or who had been honorably discharged from the military, and who had not committed a serious crime (rigidly defined as felonies, serious misdemeanors, and certain specified misdemeanors), could apply for legal status.

Immigration is a split authority under the US Constitution and US law. Congress sets policy, such as limits on number of immigrants and general policy for what an immigrant must do in order to be admitted to the United States legally. Specific decisions, however, are left to the Executive Branch... for instance, the determination that certain countries are not properly vetting and/or are stable enough to assure proper vetting of VISAs (aka the "Travel Ban"), individual determination whether or not to admit immigrants based on National Security concerns, etc. So DACA, according to some, appeared on the surface to be an overreach of Executive Privilege because it expanded instead of controlled immigration.

In 2014, President Obama announced his intention to expand the DACA program to allow for more participants and include DAPA (Delayed Action for Parents of Americans) which would have included the parents of children who were eligible for DACA. An injunction from Judge Andrew S. Hanen in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas stopped the expansion, and the Supreme Court, short the late Anthony Scalia, refused to override the injunction in a 4-4 vote. It should be noted that had the case been heard today, it is highly likely the injunction would be upheld with Justice Gorsuch replacing Justice Scalia.

Additional legal challenges have been working their way through the court system to DACA itself. There is dissent among legal scholars as to whether DACA itself is Constitutional, but indications right now are that the Supreme Court would render it unconstitutional due to the lack of action by Congress. Of course, should Congress codify DACA, the case would be moot, because clearly Congress has the primary authority to set immigration policy.

In response to the ensuing legal challenges, Attorney General Sessions announced on September 5th that he was rescinding DACA due to his belief that it was unconstitutional and had adverse impacts on the economy and National Security. President Trump then urged Congress to codify a DACA replacement and stated he would continue enforcing DACA for six months to give Congress time to comply with his request. As of today, Congress has not acted, although the DACA replacement has been discussed.

In the discussion, however, lies the threat of a Presidential veto. Trump has declared that he will not sign any DACA deal that does not deal with the underlying cause of the problem that required DACA in the first place. In other words, he wants more stringent border enforcement, and funds to begin construction of his wall, a major plank in his platform that won him the Presidency. This is far from unusual; in politics, the key word is compromise... no one gets everything they want, but everyone gets something they want.

Of course, there has been, as is typical in our modern world, a divide between Republicans and Democrats... not on DACA itself or a need for a DACA program; most people both in Congress and in the general population do seem to feel that some measure of leniency is required in this specific instance. After all, these were children with no choice but to follow their parents when the illegal border crossing occurred, and some were so young when they arrived that they have never known their home country. In almost every respect they are already Americans. They are a part of our communities, they have often served our military, and they did not commit a crime by coming here illegally due to their age at the time. I count myself among those who believe they deserve special treatment.

However, I also blame their parents for placing their children in this situation. The parents made a conscious decision to perform an illegal act, and are thus responsible for their actions. It would be heartless IMO for anyone to suggest that this practice should continue unabated, placing potentially millions more children in the awkward position of not knowing when or if they could face deportation to a country they never knew. Something must be done not only to protect those already here, but to prevent future instances from occurring. Anything less is at best ignorant neglect, and at worse detestable sadism.

The Trump administration and Trump himself were immediately lambasted by the Democratic Party as racist and uncaring. They declared how terrible and incompassionate Trump was to dare rescind DACA. One would think that there would be widespread support to do something in Congress to codify DACA... but it appears there is not. The stickler seems to be the wall. According to every news report I have seen so far, on every news outlet, the Democratic position has come down to a decision of whether they are more wiling to accept funding for a southern border wall or they want to protect the DACA-eligble immigrants. Their decision seems to be that they care more about stopping construction of a wall than about protecting the DACA participants.

This obviously will not play well in the elections in states with high concentrations of DACA recipients. So a new proposal has been offered, as usual through the courts. While it was well expected that the rescission would be challenged, the Supreme Court has already remanded some cases from the US District Court of Northern California, where they were filed, to the 9th Circuit Appeals Court. Yet, the Court of Northern California has issued an injunction preventing the rescission from continuing, essentially declaring one legally questionable Executive Order as law and declaring the Executive Order reversing it as illegal. In no way, manner, or form can that considered as anything other than declaring law from a court bench, something that is specifically prohibited by the United States Constitution. The Executive Branch has, of course, complied temporarily... but here's the rub:

If Congress does not act, instead preferring to 'kick the can' to the courts, then DACA is doomed. It is quite probable that the Supreme Court, upon hearing the challenges, will declare that the rescission is Constitutional and open the door for removal of DACA recipients after the 6-month grace period for Congress has expired. In that case, there will be no legal reasoning that could prevent DACA recipients from being deported, and since the Executive Branch already has their information on file, the deportation will likely be swift and sure. People who thought they were safe, who actually paid money for enrollment in DACA, will find themselves surprised by a sudden assault of ICE officials with no warning and no recourse.

I talk too much... continued...




posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 11:41 AM
link   
...continued...

A simple compromise on the DACA issue in Congress, on the other hand, would ensure their safety from any deportation as long as they did not commit a felony. Yet, Congressional Democrats who cry the loudest for mercy for DACA recipients are the very ones who are making this horrendous decision to throw their supposed targets of grace to the wolves... and make sure the DACA recipients are deported.

This reminds me of the problems caused by the DNC concerning marijuana legalization: rather than legalize (or at least decriminalize) marijuana on a Federal level, they chose inaction with a lack of enforcement by Executive Order... a method that may have worked at the time, but which is now falling apart under a new administration. Congress took the easy way out, and in doing so accomplished nothing substantial. This time with DACA, Congress is once again taking the easy way out and accomplishing less than nothing. This time they are accomplishing pain and misery to untold numbers of human beings who have done nothing wrong except following their parents.

I honestly do not know how anyone can support Congress not helping DACA recipients over a pride issue... but I am sure someone will be along and explain how they can.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Isn't this what Trump supporters wanted? All illegal immigrants expelled from the country? I'm confused. Aren't they murderers and rapists? And wasn't MEXICO suppose to pay for that wall? Please don't blame the Democrats. Republicans RUN THE GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY. Trump got rid of the EO allowing DACA. He didn't have too. But he did. Let him own it.


+13 more 
posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 11:55 AM
link   
That is the best explanation of the DACA situation I've read yet.


That said I don't see why children brought to the US illegally should be given legal status. People say they don't want to break up families and I agree - where the parents go the children should too. Allowing them to stay with relatives IS breaking up families. Yes, it's difficult for kids to move to other countries - people all over the world do it all the time. In fact many do that just by coming to the US.

Who's to blame?
Obama for creating a loophole everyone now wants to take advantage of.
Until we end chain migration DACA is just another cheap end-around to allow illegal parents to re-enter legally.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   
Well if you want to ignore US federal laws.

Then ignore the Affordable Care Act, and over 80 years of gun control.

If we get to pick and choose when they matter.

Why should illegal immigrants get all the reward?



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MiddleInsite

Please read my post. I do not want non-felonious DACA eligible immigrants deported. I want them to have legal status. I think Trump wants them to ave legal status. I believe the majority of the Republicans want them to have legal status. There's going to be exceptions in almost any case, of course, because believe it or not both Republicans and Democrats are human... but a handful of Democrats would ensure a bill passed. Only a handful. Not a majority.

Not a single Democrat in the Congress has even suggested they will vote to allow them legal status, at least to my knowledge. If you know of one, please link me to where they said they would do so.

Had Trump wanted the DACA recipients deported, he would have done so immediately. He did not. He gave the Congress 6 months to give them legal protection, and even asked for Congress to give them legal protection. He also said even if Congress did not act, he would 'revisit' the issue. But now, the courts are involved thanks to Democratic challenges. That actually ties Trump's hand. Do you want him to defy a court order to discontinue DACA? Because, thanks to the DNC, that is what's coming now.

I want to see legal status...the DNC wants to see Trump fail, even if they have to deport every illegal alien that ever existed, including digging up graves to get the dead ones out. That is so painfully obvious, I don't see how a blind man can't see it.

TheRedneck

edit on 1/15/2018 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: TheRedneck

Isn't this what Trump supporters wanted? All illegal immigrants expelled from the country? I'm confused. Aren't they murderers and rapists? And wasn't MEXICO suppose to pay for that wall? Please don't blame the Democrats. Republicans RUN THE GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY. Trump got rid of the EO allowing DACA. He didn't have too. But he did. Let him own it.



You do realize DACA was a horrible way to kick the can down the road right? It probably won't pass the Supreme Court if it ever gets there.


No...that's what the left thinks we all want. We can't deport every single illegal. There will be some sort of path for some but not all. Secure border so more illegals don't get in, tighten up and enforce visas and hopefully everify. Also go to a merit based entry than lottery and limit chain migration.
The secure first or at least at same time is vital or we will keep this cycle going.


edit on 15-1-2018 by pavil because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2018 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:07 PM
link   
I agree with you and it really sucks the lives of innocent children are in the hands of the U.S. congress, because we know how they work. We all know how ineffective they've been. I'd say the only one innocent is Trump due to him just becoming a politician a year ago and has had no power to do anything about it until now. He's also right that the reasoning for DACA needs addressed instead of continuing to kick the can down the road as you said.

My biggest issue is why do the Dems think they should get what they want, but not Trump yet we won the election? In my opinion this falls directly on the Dems if they're not willing to work with Trump on addressing the issues that required a program like DACA. They had plenty of time to address this EO and make it law. It's time for our politicians to let go of their ego's, work together and compromise so we can properly function as a country. I'm tired of them playing games with our lives, yet expect us to come out and vote for them time and time again.




The Secure Fence Act of 2006, which was passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President George W. Bush, authorized about 700 miles of fencing along certain stretches of land between the border of the United States and Mexico.

The act also authorized the use of more vehicle barriers, checkpoints and lighting to curb illegal immigration, and the use of advanced technology such as satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles.

At the time the act was being considered, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer were all members of the Senate. (Schumer of New York is now the Senate minority leader.)

Obama, Clinton, Schumer and 23 other Democratic senators voted in favor of the act when it passed in the Senate by a vote of 80 to 19.


Source



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Maybe one day people will wake up and see the problem are the lifers in Congress not the figure head in the oval office.

But the more I read, the more I am beginning to doubt the average intelligence of the American populace.
edit on 15-1-2018 by Irishhaf because: Not worth it



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:15 PM
link   
the DACA solution should be a clean bill just addressing the DACA problem...
they have bipartisan support for that.
many of the DACA recipients spent their entire lives here in the states, in our public schools, attending our colleges, or maybe even graduated from those colleges? how many have become highly skilled workers.
does it really make sense to sent them away now? I mean they either invested in themselves or maybe our taxdollars invested in them to help them become highly skilled, right? Some probably even have some unpaid student debt, you send them back to countries that they have no memory of, just what chance is there that that student debt will be paid??

now, let's go onto his "s...t hole" or "s...t house" comment, of which I think that the house is more appropriate by the way. and I ain't even gonna get racial here. Trump wants to have more immigrants from western countries, like norway that those from those second or third world countries, am I right to say this?
historically, immigrants have started at the bottom of the ladder, but now we should start centering in on those immigrants that come from countries who have invested into their people, providing free healthcare, providing free education.... investments our country and it's industries just doesn't want to make in our own people which is causing our people to gravitate to the bottom of the economic ladder.
basically what is being said is that we don't need any more low skilled people in the country, since we've made it so difficult for our workforce to to gain the skills needed and are manufacturing enough people in that class thank you!! what we need is high skilled people and we are too cheap to manufacture out own, so let's try to siphon them from those foolish socialist countries that are willing invest in their people!!
leave the daca people alone, cut the number of immigrants from everywhere greatly, and start investing in our workforce till we need the lower skilled people again.
what is being proposed to me would be an immigration policy of one of those second or third world countries... ya know, those s...t hole countries as trump put it!!!

edit on 15-1-2018 by dawnstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: TheRedneck

Isn't this what Trump supporters wanted? All illegal immigrants expelled from the country? I'm confused. Aren't they murderers and rapists? And wasn't MEXICO suppose to pay for that wall? Please don't blame the Democrats. Republicans RUN THE GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY. Trump got rid of the EO allowing DACA. He didn't have too. But he did. Let him own it.


No, that's not what was wanted. That's just what CNN told their low info viewers.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
a reply to: TheRedneck

Isn't this what Trump supporters wanted? All illegal immigrants expelled from the country? I'm confused. Aren't they murderers and rapists? And wasn't MEXICO suppose to pay for that wall? Please don't blame the Democrats. Republicans RUN THE GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY. Trump got rid of the EO allowing DACA. He didn't have too. But he did. Let him own it.


Trump wanted Congress to deal with this from a legal perspective instead of the tenuous and questionable position of an executive order. I realize it is more fun to make it a political thing, but it wasn't. The fact that Congress is still failing to deal with this is on them not Trump.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I have nothing to add other thann thanks for laying this whole thing out simply, so that an idiot like me can get a grip on it.

I think you make a lot of good points, I have even sent your diatribe to some liberal friends for a rebuttal... I will also await this thread for rebuttal.

Nicely written.

To me the interesting thing is the whole non action/kicking the can thing.

Talk about a setup." I'll look great in the short term and leave the hard decisions and bad publicity to the next Schmuck"

Not cool. But typical.
edit on 15-1-2018 by SteamyJeans because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

1). Outstanding OP! Very well presented.

2). I am in total agreement that DACA should be somehow codified. These kids, many of whom have served in the military, many of whom are educated and working productive members of society, need a fast track to citizenship, IMHO.

3). I live in a Texas Congressional District that is 70% Hispanic that elected a Republican Representative and that guy is working hard to work a compromise. I hope he can but I have my doubts.

From what I can gleen, the Dems are the recalcitrant party in this issue and I honestly don't get that. Here in Texas we have whats called "Blue Dog Democrats", Representatives in Congress largely elected out of the Rio Grand Valley region. They are the remnant of the "Conservative Democrats" in Texas. They are working with my Republican Rep and have expressed frustration with the Democrats in Congress over this issue.

Think about it though. Regardless who is in the White House, Congress is the biggest problem in the US today. We need term limits, especially on the Senate.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

As an aside

MAY 28, 2014
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Tens of thousands of children unaccompanied by parents or relatives are flooding across the southern U.S. border illegally, forcing the Obama administration and Congress to grapple with both a humanitarian crisis and a budget dilemma.


Suyen G, who asked that her full name not be published, said she left her native Honduras two years ago aged 16 after securing $9,000 to pay a smuggler to get her into the United States. “I didn’t know it was illegal because a lot of people come. I thought it was something that normal people just do,” she said through a translator.


amnesty

10 June 2014
President Barack Obama is calling tens of thousands of illegal-immigrant children languishing in temporary U.S. holding pens an 'urgent humanitarian situation,' but Republicans are pointing the finger of blame squarely at the White House.
Obama instituted an immigration policy that the GOP says enticed tens of thousands of Central American children to cross America's southern border illegally without any parents to guide them.

More than 33,000 have been picked up in Texas alone since October. The U.S. border patrol says its forces are overwhelmed, and the courts are bracing for a flood of immigration cases from children held in temporary detention facilities designed to handle a fraction of the numbers. Sanitation problems are beginning to rear their ugly heads.

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... -landing-secret-government-holding-pens.html#ixzz54HWxjzKW
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


problem reaction solution, except solution keeps getting avoided by congress...
the ones elected to do the will of the people.

If we have to make America great again, it must mean we are ourselves living in a sh#t-hole?

What is the cause for nations to become sh#t-holes in the first place?
Personal wealth, IMOHO.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 01:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TonyS

1) Thank you!

2) I'm not wild about citizenship, but I can see a lifetime green card, permanent legal status to do everything but vote and run for office. The only reason I can see to allow it to be revoked is via a serious felony, and I can live with no possible revocation if the law handles them the same way it does a citizen offender. Their children, of course, would be citizens... and that would apply whether or not one thinks the Constitution is being misread when it comes to the phrase 'natural born citizens.' If one of their parents is a legal permanent resident, that means the kids are natural born citizens. Period. Done.

But, I would not consider it a destruction of the country if a path to citizenship were offered.

3) We have a few Blue Dogs here too... Jones claimed to be one before he managed to get elected, but I will wait to see if he is. He can say anything, but I want to see how he votes. If he'll start acting like a Blue Dog, I'll change my signature line back and possibly become one of his supporters. Party affiliation is the worst possible judge of who to elect.

The one thing I have seen after the election is that there can be no clearer evidence that the Senate is the major block to accomplishing anything the country needs and wants. The House is bad as well, but they seem to still be able to function a little. The Senate? Just a place where good ideas go to die and bad ideas get honored with a lot of lip service.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 01:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Man, I am really getting old and adled. I only just realized that the DACA kids, are, today, old enough today to have children of their own and probably old enough to have kids of their own in school!

Man, what a freakin' mess this is. If Congress can't up their game there should be some hell for them to pay over it! Democrat OR Republican.

FWIW, our Blue Dogs stay faithful Blue Dogs and as a result, have very little suasion in DC.

Sad really. Back in the day, in Texas at least, when we had a lot of Blue Dogs at the State and local level, and even sometimes in Congress, we seemed to enjoy a lot more competition of ideas. I and many others regularly "split the ticket" when voting to get the best qualified "professional" elected to be, say, County Treasurer. I mean like a real CPA who campaigned on real issues having to do with finance and such. Now all we get is identity politics and in many of the Urban counties, they elect people to important positions with no professional qualifications.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

From what I read the other day, there was a tentative bipartisan deal struck by three Republican senators and three Democrat senators. As I recall, the deal included a 12 year path to citizenship, changes to curb "chain migration," $3-4 billion in border security funding including the money requested by the admin for repairing/building border fences this year and dissolution of the lottery system with allocation of half those visas to "high-priority countries" and the other half going to immigrants under Temporary Protected Status.

Compromises are inherently imperfect and this one tends to favor the GOP agenda as should be expected given their control of Congress and the White House — but it's a compromise that seems to have a chance of garnering enough support to pass.

Despite his grandstanding in public, Trump appears to have shot the deal down. From what I've read, he's had Tom Cotton in his ear pushing a more hard-line approach.

He wants more money for whatever the "border wall" has morphed into now that it's being increasingly acknowledged by the administration that a continuous wall running the length of the border is impractical (if for no other reason, geography). Trump (and I assume Cotton and probably Goldlatte) want restrictions to family-based visas beyond what has been proposed (eliminating the provision for the parents of DREAMers).

And then there's the #hole debacle. The statement is reportedly in the context of the allocation of visas formerly from the visa lottery program with Trump not wanting half going to TPS holders.

It's well and good to blame Congress but at the same time, Trump appears to have also pulled a bait and switch — signalling a willingness to sign legislation that results from bipartisan compromise but then behind closed doors opting to take a different, hard-line stance.



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 01:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: TheRedneck

From what I read the other day, there was a tentative bipartisan deal struck by three Republican senators and three Democrat senators. As I recall, the deal included a 12 year path to citizenship, changes to curb "chain migration," $3-4 billion in border security funding including the money requested by the admin for repairing/building border fences this year and dissolution of the lottery system with allocation of half those visas to "high-priority countries" and the other half going to immigrants under Temporary Protected Status.

Compromises are inherently imperfect and this one tends to favor the GOP agenda as should be expected given their control of Congress and the White House — but it's a compromise that seems to have a chance of garnering enough support to pass.

Despite his grandstanding in public, Trump appears to have shot the deal down. From what I've read, he's had Tom Cotton in his ear pushing a more hard-line approach.

He wants more money for whatever the "border wall" has morphed into now that it's being increasingly acknowledged by the administration that a continuous wall running the length of the border is impractical (if for no other reason, geography). Trump (and I assume Cotton and probably Goldlatte) want restrictions to family-based visas beyond what has been proposed (eliminating the provision for the parents of DREAMers).

And then there's the #hole debacle. The statement is reportedly in the context of the allocation of visas formerly from the visa lottery program with Trump not wanting half going to TPS holders.

It's well and good to blame Congress but at the same time, Trump appears to have also pulled a bait and switch — signalling a willingness to sign legislation that results from bipartisan compromise but then behind closed doors opting to take a different, hard-line stance.


That compromise is almost there. Throw a little more border security money and it's probably a deal. The chain and the lottery visa probably will be tweaked as well. Any immigration deal will favor Republicans ideas more....it's the perk you get for winning.

If the will is there on both sides, it will get done. The core of the problem is to prevent another DACA situation from every happen in again. Washington has a tendency to let issues fester till they need emergency room type treatments.

We need to knockout Immigration so we can move onto more important things like infrastructure ect.

Congress can't seem to chew gum and walk at the same time. One thing at a time.
edit on 15-1-2018 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2018 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian


From what I read the other day, there was a tentative bipartisan deal struck by three Republican senators and three Democrat senators. As I recall, the deal included a 12 year path to citizenship, changes to curb "chain migration," $3-4 billion in border security funding including the money requested by the admin for repairing/building border fences this year and dissolution of the lottery system with allocation of half those visas to "high-priority countries" and the other half going to immigrants under Temporary Protected Status.

Compromises are inherently imperfect and this one tends to favor the GOP agenda as should be expected given their control of Congress and the White House — but it's a compromise that seems to have a chance of garnering enough support to pass.

That's the way it is supposed to work, and as I mentioned to TonyS, I can live with a 12-year path to citizenship. Not my personal preference, but that's what compromise is all about. The hard-lines that each side want, based on rhetoric spouted thus far, seem to me to be
  • Democrats: DACA codification
  • Republican: The 'wall' (which would include increased border security) and more realistic immigration guidelines.
That sort of favors the GOP agenda, as you say, but they did win the election, as you say. I can't see why both parties can't get what they want, codification for DACA, ending chain immigration and the lottery, and funding for a border wall with increased budget for border security.

I have heard it mentioned that a major concern for the progressive agenda is that, even if illegal immigrants don't vote, they are included in the census and therefore throw off the redistricting in favor of areas with a higher illegal immigrant population. I can see that as an issue; when I worked the Census back in 2010, there was no question whatsoever about citizenship. We asked for a social security number, but were told to not push if there was any kind of refusal. Perhaps that should be included in the census: some sort of statement at least about citizenship.


It's well and good to blame Congress but at the same time, Trump appears to have also pulled a bait and switch — signalling a willingness to sign legislation that results from bipartisan compromise but then behind closed doors opting to take a different, hard-line stance.

That is easy to handle: pass a bill that looks like something Trump has said he would sign, and let him either sign it or veto it. Get him on record. Then, with that action public knowledge, an attack on Trump will hold water if it is truly against the will of the people. That's how politics works... what someone says means infinitely less than what someone does when the chips are down. All this talk about what Trump said or what Ryan said or what Schumer said or what Pelosi said is just a wag of bull excrement encased nonsense (and that includes the statement Trump made that I am not even going to address further here)... what did they do? How did they vote?

That's what I care about.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
35
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join