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.

 

Why do Democrats oppose immigration control?

page: 9
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 03:56 PM
link   
a reply to: conspiracy nut

I heard Trump say that only 3% of the people who were "catch and release" returned at the appropriate time for their hearings, while in actuality it is a little over 75%.

I would be greater than 75%, but some of the people who return for their hearing, aren't given one.

ladeeda.

Lies lies lies. It's all the American people get from this man.




posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: soundguy

Beating my wife? I've never hit a woman in my life, why would you say such a crazy thing?


It's what's known as a "loaded question". A yes or a no still implies guilt. I think soundguy feels your OP poses the same type of question, even though evidence abounds that you are correct.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: mkultra11


The actual deal-breaker, which you failed to mention, was chain migration & visa lottery.


Actually no and I don't know what Novak is talking about. The Graham-Durbin bill, which had good bipartisan support, did away with the visa lottery program and limited family reunification/chain migration/whatever loaded term you want to use (it's actually preferential consideration, prioritization if you will, for family members of US citizens). That legislation was introduced a week after the first meeting.

Graham, Durbin introduce bipartisan immigration bill despite setbacks


Washington (CNN)A bipartisan group of senators on Wednesday formally unveiled their immigration proposal with new supporters -- even as the White House continued to call the deal dead on arrival.

Sens. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois, and Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, introduced their bill Wednesday afternoon with Sens. Bob Menendez, D-New Jersey, Michael Bennet, D-Colorado, Jeff Flake, R-Arizona, Cory Gardner, R-Colorado, Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, Lamar Alexander, R-Tennessee, Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Mike Rounds, R-South Dakota, putting the bill close to having enough votes to pass the Senate, assuming unanimous Democratic support, but not quite to the 60-vote threshold needed to advance legislation.

If passed, the bill would appropriate $2.705 billion in border security improvements, eliminate the visa lottery, make permanent the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program -- offering a pathway to citizenship to those who qualify -- and limit "chain migration," or family-based migration, of the individuals eligible for the program.


It was immediately declared DOA by the WH. In fact, SHS literally referred to it as such early the following Tuesday:

White House: Graham-Durbin immigration bill 'dead on arrival'


Press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders gave her strongest indication yet that President Trump would not sign the measure, written by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), if it reaches his desk.

“It’s totally unacceptable to the president and should be declared dead on arrival,” she told reporters.


Trump made a big deal about saying how he would sign any bipartisan legislation that was put in front of him. A bipartisan group from Congress responded with a bipartisan bill with ample support. Trump refused to support it as he had said he would. No matter how you slice it, that's a bait and switch.

And of course it was Stephen Miller who introduced the WH's proposal. Notice, that's not at all what Trump said was going to happen. What they came back with was a proposal that fully funded the wall, ended all family preference except children (and I think it may have been minor children only) and spouses (which is ironic because I'm fairly certain that's how his in-laws are in the country). Additionally, they wanted a bunch of money to fund the removal infrastructure.

Basically, Trump went from "I'll sign anything" to "I want everything" in exchange for a DACA fix. The bipartisan bill was a fair compromise and when the Dems were willing to put wall funding on the table, he should have jumped on it.


Trump also signed an Executive Order ending family separation, something Obama could have done and never did. Yet, he's still criticized because this is manufactured outrage.


This makes no sense. It was the Trump DOJ's change in policy, intended to put as many people in detention as possible by charging them with illegal entry, that brought about the uptick in thousands of family separations. He didn't need to sign an EO to counteract his own policy — he could have just had Sessions roll it back.

Furthermore, the EO isn't going to stand up to challenge in court.

None of this is new information for the admin. They'd been kicking this # around since early last year. They knew exactly what was going to happen and that's why they sat on it as long as they did. Yet somehow, knowing this and with all the time they had to prepare — as they were operating on their own timeline — they don't seem to have even made any preparations before enacting the new policy and by failing to do so, they made an already controversial move into a complete #show.

Manufactured outrage my ass. It was a manufactured crisis.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Relatively simple more people here making votes for them if you let everyone in. They will not talk about it in mms but there is a substantial amount of illegal ballets every election and the democrats want them votes.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 04:53 PM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

1. Globalist love cheap labor
2. Black people are not reproducing enough mostly due to abortion.
3. Hispanics have a lot of kids which means future votes.
4. POC are easier to prey on with victim culture.
5. POC have worse school systems which create more government dependency.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 05:24 PM
link   


Why do Democrats oppose immigration control?




Less votes? Maybe.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 06:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: conspiracy nut

I heard Trump say that only 3% of the people who were "catch and release" returned at the appropriate time for their hearings, while in actuality it is a little over 75%.

I would be greater than 75%, but some of the people who return for their hearing, aren't given one.

ladeeda.

Lies lies lies. It's all the American people get from this man.



Source please.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: mkultra11

Stop it with all the facts.

It surprises me how many people on the left blindly followed Obama and Hillary and can't quote their policies. They defend people who actually said things and did actions that they claim to oppose because they don't spend the time to learn the truth.

It's not about facts, it's about feelings after all.

It's funny you say thanks for pointing out hypocrisy and then immediately engage in it.

I care about facts.

The facts are that the Obama administration deported more illegal immigrants than any prior administration.
The facts are that the Obama administration tightened borders.
The facts are that the existing barrier along the southern border was mostly erected during the Bush and Obama administrations.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy
People who are anti-immigrant are just full of hate and want to scapegoat immigrants for all their problems.

You're the reason why Trump won. Truth hurts but you better believe it.
edit on 6-7-2018 by rollanotherone because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96


And as far as illegals being allowed to vote.


Not just yet.

But they do get up on stage and speak at Democratic National Conventions.

www.reuters.com...

The TRUTH shall set you free.


I know you dont understand US civics but members of House of Representatives are charged with representing ALL PEOPLE in their district. This is why the census counts all persons and not just citizens. So a political party giving a speaking role at the convention to someone they represent isnt some far out unbelievable thing.



posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: rollanotherone

No I’m pretty sure it was all the wack-a-doodles who voted for him... well and the democrats running the most unpopular politician in American history..



Quick question.. I think the other thread got killed..

Why is someone with your user name supporting the “pro war on drugs” party???

Conservatives are the only reason it started (Nixon demonizing blacks and hippies) and it is still conservatives who are championing it..

Hell the gop gets the majority of the big pharma lobby money and ALL the private prison lobby money..

So how does that work??

Personally I think the war on drugs is responsible for literally 80% of the problems we have today..


Militarized police state..

Countless ruined families and lives..

The proliferation of the gangs/cartels who get basically all their funding from drugs..



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Basically the whole thing started with the Left kneejerk reacting to Illegal Immigration enforcement proclaiming it to be racist.

Think about those words for a minute... there's no racism contained therein. Illegal = against the law. Immigration = the movement of people from one place to another.

The Left is actually more racist than the Right because they assume Illegal Immigrant = brown person from Latin America.

Think about that.

Everything after that are the loons on the Left who's moral compasses are broken and lack any rational capacity to think about something. Illegal immigration includes white, blacks, browns, asians and penguins. It cares not for color of the illegal individual.

I am not on the right however. I reside somewhere off the chart so to speak but agree with Trump in principle on a number of issues and the facts behind them especially his stance on China and border control.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: SpartanStoic

The UK doesn't care what colour you are are, if you get caught here illegally then you get deported, simple as that.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 01:08 AM
link   
a reply to: JoshuaCox

See that's your problem. You, for some reason can't see past your own bias. Because I support pro legalization, I have to vote Democrat. Sorry, I did that up until 2016. How has the A) war on drugs been going thus far, and B) the legalization of marijuana and hemp thus far? Seems to me both parties have failed to make hemp production and recreational marijuana use legal in the US.
And again, you're the reason why Trump won in 2016 and 2020. Keep blaming the evil ole GOP for the problems in America. It's really helping the Democrats win seats.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 01:12 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit




The UK/France/Belgium border is also 'juxtaposed' meaning UK border force are actually on the continental side keeping people out. The French hate it, they'd just let them on the trains and ferry's, they don't want them either.


So Democrats, why don't you want controls on the number of people who enter your country? Seems nuts to me.


This was the original question asked of the USA. You're meandering all over the place. We get it you like to blame everyone and yet are willfully in denial of the problems brought about through unfettered immigration.

You jump through hoops wringing your hands and gnashing your teeth rather than face the fact that Europe is slowly being Islamified.

Boats cross and land in Italy or Cyprus from North Africa hoping to escape into Europe through Schengen. They dont stay in France, they hope to get to England!

With your liberal ideals out of a misguided sense of collective guilt you will only be happy when your fellow Brits are out of work or having to compete for min wage jobs. You have fallen for the Soros trap, hook line & sinker.

www.theguardian.com...



" 'We want to work': refugees tell France why UK is so attractive New arrivals in France lack rights and help in navigating minefield of bureaucracy, MPs are told" Asylum seekers continue to flock to Calais in the hope of reaching Britain because France does so little to help new arrivals find work, retrain or integrate, a group of immigrants has told MPs.


You can take responsibility for the past all you like

What about the future, what are you promising your children? Virtue signaling.

Pfft



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 01:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: rollanotherone
Militarized police state..


You sound like a college campus feminist crying "rape culture rape culture". I don't know about you, but I don't see the "militarised police state" you mention. I can walk around down town and never see cops sporting AR-47's with 1000 rounds per second heat seeking laser bullets. In fact, I rarely if ever see police, and last time I did, they were running a speed trap, pulling people over in a popular speeding spot. I say, good on them.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Eh what are you going on about? I support the UK'S tough stance on immigration.
We'd be like France with thousands of them over here if our policy softened.
Maybe you didn't comprehend my OP?

EDIT
Are you drunk?
edit on 7-7-2018 by CornishCeltGuy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: dfnj2015




Immigrants are good for the economy.


Thats bullsnip and has been shown that unless there is commensurate spending on infrastructureto cope its a crisis waiting to explode.

To put simply Govts have to borrow for capital works up front and hope they get it slowly back in the future through taxes.
And I guess if a lot of them are working for cash with no papers good luck with collecting any tax off them.


This illustrates the issue - ignoring it will not change the reality.

www.abc.net.au...

Updated 24 Apr 2017, 6:37am


But the crime committed by Australian governments of all persuasions in the past 20 years is that, while they've been happy to accept the kudos for economic growth, they've been totally unwilling to spend the necessary cash to ensure the economy can cope with such a dramatic influx of new arrivals.

In essence, they've cooked the books.

As a result, many of our major cities are choking. Our infrastructure is obsolete. Utilities are struggling. That, in turn, has adversely affected our productivity and led to further distortions in how our wealth is distributed.

The laughable illusion of our economic miracle — the nation that fuels and feeds the world — is highlighted by looking just one small step beyond the raw GDP data.

If you simply divide our economic growth performance by the number of Australians, our growth doesn't look anywhere near as flash.




posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 01:55 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko




did so to escape the crappy conditions and people they left behind.


And this is another important distinction to make. A lot of the illegals appear to be economic refugees not political refugees.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 01:58 AM
link   
a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

Look again - I responded to Truebrit and his response to you. I think you owe me an apology - unless you're TrueBrit with a 2nd account?




top topics



 
22
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join