Does Trump and the GOP really think deporting the dreamers will play well for them long term???

a reply to: Xtrozero
That is amongst the American people.. not elected politicians..

Amongst elected republicans that number would be 65% against them staying..

That hasn't been the fight...

The fight has been over weather there should be a process to sort through illegals and decide which ones are good enough to stay, and give them work permits while they are waiting..

Or weather to ship them all back to wherever and then start the process from scratch.


if republicans were cool with sorting through them this would have been done long ago ..

a reply to: Xtrozero

Because the GOP doesn't debate the actual proposal.. they debate some slippery slope worst case scenerio that doesn't even have the variables to actually happen..

Gay marriage??? "what's next letting people marry animals,!?!

Ban on the sale of new Assault rifles?? "They wanna ban all guns".

Path to citizenship for illegals who are actually worth keeping?? "They wanna get rid of the border and make all the illegals citizens!!"


They are never debating the actual topic..

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: JoshuaCox

That sounds like it would be for a green card. Xtrozero's sister-in-law has been waiting 14 years to become a citizen but I'm assuming that that would be in the US.

Maybe not apples and oranges but not the same either.

Basically to get a green card for right now. She was back ground checked and I paid the money 14 years ago, about two years after that she was approved and is now waiting lol

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

Amongst elected republicans that number would be 65% against them staying..

That would mean a lot of Dems too, but in the end a politician would not go against 85% of the voting population... as I said that would be suicide.

a reply to: Xtrozero

That sounds wrong. My brother-in-law had to wait about a year for a green card.

Guess the devil is in the details.

a reply to: Xtrozero

That's why they shift the argument to something no one is proposing..

If the sold it like it is.. no one would ever vote republican lol...

You say that, and I agree you would think so..

But they shift the narrative and pretend the democrats wanna get rid of the border completely or some other nonesense..

Then the argument isn't weather illegals who pass some screwing processs can stay.

The argument is between if we should have borders at all..


Where do you think all the fairness and rule of law arguments come from..

"Why should we reward lawlessness?"

"Is it fair to the ones who have been patiently waiting in their home countries?"

The reward they are talking about is the ability to stay here and keep working while they wait..

What did you think the democrats were proposing??

a reply to: Xtrozero

Elected republicans..

About half the dems are cool with shipping all the non dreamers without a sorting process. To be fair.

But all are on board with the dreamers.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

What did you think the democrats were proposing??

Not 100% sure, but being a republican I don't really see an issue with them staying and going though the process legally. Everyone has a different and this is their...

originally posted by: daskakik


That sounds wrong. My brother-in-law had to wait about a year for a green card.

Guess the devil is in the details.

I guess it depends on a person's status. My wife got her green card at customs when we first came into the country. I was active duty and we had my first son with us, so that expedited her to instant green card. For her sister it has been a long road.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Going through the process legally requires them to go "home" and wait.

It really isn't about immigrants or right and wrong..

It's about votes..

The dems know 80% vote for then so :

"legalize as many as possible, quick.."

The GOP knows 80% vote against them so:

"None of them should be able to stay!!"

It's the same with corporations and unions..

When the truth is all those people and groups are individual entities..

Some good, some bad.

Ps.. don't you think just assuming one side has it wrong because of party affiliation is a huge problem?????

Imho that's the only reason all this crazy propaganda exists.. ANY critical thought would lead people to a totally different conclusion.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I see. She is trying to get the green card through her sister. I had thought that she was married to your brother.

So yeah, again, not apples and oranges but not the same either. It is all these variables that makes each case move at a certain speed. Maybe the dreamers who fill certain requirements do have more rights than your sister-in-law? Just like your wife did.

a reply to: daskakik

Presently they do not and the argument has been that they should not, since it "rewards lawlessness."

I think absolutes are always a bad idea.

That is what's wrong with the corporate world imho.. they try and design policy to cover too much in one rule..

When taking things case by case, is slower maybe but yields WAY better results.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

They always go case by case but there are still groups. Like Xtrozero's wife getting instant residency and her sister having to wait a long time. A tiered system.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Xenogears
If you dont understand how incentivicing and disincentivicing works thats sad.

I know how it works but the dream act doesn't allow for those who entered after the law was passed to apply so there is no incentive.

You would have known this if you had bothered to at least look at what the law really says. Guess you didn't have enough of an incentive.

If they passed the law once they can do it again. It shows promise for those wanting in.

a reply to: Xenogears

So getting rid of it isn't going to disincentivize anyone since it, along with other laws, have been passed once.

Seems like your argument is a little too late.