Republican controlled committee votes to grant backdoor open borders via asylum regulation


#41

In general, to this comment and others throughout this thread, it amazes me that Republicans are stabbing each other in the back over illegal immigration. It amazes me the obsession that both Democrats and Republicans have over illegal immigration.

Where it counts, Republicans are nowhere to be seen standing up to Trump, not on tariffs and not on wasteful government budgets. When Trump grudgingly signs a budget bill, his biggest concern (and apparently theirs too from the other direction) is illegal immigration and not the wasteful spending.

From JWK’s link:

he was “considering a VETO” because the bill does not fully address his immigration priorities

In the 1990s, Republicans stood up to President Clinton, shut down the government and the two sides started coming up with balanced budgets. Gotta hand it to ol’ Newt and his Contract with America but not to modern Republicans, not the president and not Congress. Their priorities are screwed up all the time.

He ought to have shut that bill down not over illegal immigration but because it’s terrible. The president would have served his own interest and yours, but he just had to spend too much money so badly he was willing to compromise on illegal immigration. Spending is the nut of the problem in Washington, D.C. The swamp is still full.


#42

Bernie Sanders echoes nativists complaints about wage deflation.

In comparison, I’m quoting CATO, and the Wall Street Journal, that they not only don’t, but rather boost wages for everyone.

No Mike, the left is not Free market. That’s damn obvious to the rest of us.

I’m not telling you to, I’m saying bring back the I-100. Got it Mike? Bring. back. The I-100.

Create an employer matching program. Bring people who sign up to the employer they match up with. Allow the migrants independent use of the visas so they choose who to work for.

Joseph Swing solved this problem, and we can do it his way again. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t.

Government is deaf to all but the largest actors.

That’s why regulations give big corporations an advantage. They’re more able to influence how they’re written, than small businesses. Big Pharma , Big Energy, and Big Aggro, are all clear examples of that.


#43

Who mostly rebuild their own lives, and have comprised less than 500,000 in 8 years, worldwide. Despite all the fanfare, their actual numbers are underwhelming.

No, they are not who most illegals are, not even now.

And this doesn’t refute my point; having a category for people fleeing want amounts to violence on the level of a civil war, is legitimate. Nothing you’ve said negates that.

Looking for criminals is not same as screening out people for not having an education. That’s a double standard are own ancestors would have failed.

And it’d be easier to spot the criminals, if you offered a system that filtered on less categories, not more.

There are Human factors involved here, and you’re not involving them. We catch more of the criminals, if the rest of immigrants have a reason to help us find them. Just like it is in policing in a neighborhood. Trust is paramount.


#44

Oh, Nonsense again, AS. People crossing the border and then, when caught, CLAIMING to be seeking asylum are NOT legitimate “asylum-seekers” and you know it. They’ve been schooled in USING asylum as an EXCUSE for violating our immigration laws, and you know THAT, too. These people aren’t coming here for “jobs,” either. They are coming here for the BENEFITS we offer the poor and uneducated…and we are stupidly GIVING them those benefits.


#45

We have the numbers Dave, you can’t lie about them. It’s <500,000 asylees, out of the Northern triangle, in the last 8 years.

And for the record, most of them went to Mexico:

All the others, and there were about 330,000 border incursions last year, aren’t seeking asylum. They’re here for work.

Dave, you’ve already acknowledged that illegal immigration peaked in 2007.

The only reason that was a peak, is because economic performance is what attracted them.

Without it, more and more went back to Mexico.

Connect the damn dots.


#46

Anecdote equals trend?


#47

One again, as usual, AS cleverly switches the subject in order to evade the OP

:roll_eyes:


#48

This is an Obama “Open Border” maneuver designed to fill the nation with the poverty stricken, poorly educated, low and unskilled populations of other countries who will eventually prostitute their vote for free government cheese.

The committee’s proposal is intended to make Obama’s “policy” the law of the land

JWK


American citizens are sick and tired of being made into tax-slaves to finance a maternity ward for the poverty stricken populations of other countries who invade America’s borders to give birth.


#49

YOU “connect the damn dots,” AS. Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that 330,000 people were coming here to WORK and not for the freebies we offer? That’s BS and you know it. Certainly when we KNOW that well over 50% of that number virtually IMMEDIATELY signed up for welfare benefits.


#50

If I had that kind of help I could “rebuild my own life”, too. You know, the one wrecked by the IRS and your policy of giving the country away to illegals for the benefit of limousine liberals and country club ‘conservatives’?

Ah, so that makes resources for helping asylum seekers limitless and due diligence unnecessary? You MUST be a congressman.

And some of those factors are negative. Some humans are parasites. Some are vicious killers. Denying the reality on the ground does not change the reality on the ground.


#51

He replied to me. No reason for him to do that other than to infer something.


#52

Dave? Are they taking the Jobs?

Yes or no?

If they are, they can’t be here simply for freebies.


#53

You’re not arguing my point.

We don’t give assistance to every refugee, most come here under their own power, helped, if at all, by charitable organizations, sometimes even by the expat community of their compatriots who got here before them.

Pointing out that there’s Government assistance to refugees, is not an argument against letting them in. It’s just an argument to not give them assistance. Fine, don’t care.

Simply don’t offer them the public assistance, let them come here & be helped by people who want to offer it. Problem solved.

Most aren’t though, and you have to judge individuals, not groups. Our own Founding philosophy demands that.

Again, we have prior history with us just letting refugees in. The Pogroms and the Jews. The Volga Germans. The Irish and the Potato famine. The Vietnamese after the fall of Saigon.

I’m not advocating an extreme, just something we already know works. Let people come here & self-start. Weed out the bad ones. It’s worked for every group of refugees whose come before them.


#54

Irrelevant to the subject of the thread.

:roll_eyes:


#55

Haven’t you noticed by now that AS constantly avoids the subject of threads in order to disrupt and prevent any productive discuss regarding an OP?

JWK


#56

This is the topic of the thread. The policy isn’t new ( came about in 2007, John), and it is necessary. Because people fleeing violence, are no less in need than any other kind refugee.

Again, if we were evaluating the situation seriously, we’d classify what is going on in the Northern triangle as a civil war.

You can talk numbers, you can talk standards, and we may find agreement on those things, but arguing the category sounds more like a double standard.


#57

BS, AS. (Or, if you prefer: AS, BS.). Just because a few countries are experiencing “violence,” doesn’t give ANYONE in those countries the right to come into the U.S. uninvited and/or illegally. If that were the case, we’d be overrun in a matter of months to the point where no one living today would recognize the country we were born in.


#58

Uh Dave? We’re talking about people who formally request asylum, through the legal process. Just like Cubans do (who are no less “uninvited”), they’re just treated very differently.

Again, asylum from this violence is a category, and it’s this category, in our legal system, that is being scrutinized.

So no Dave, you misunderstood.


#59

Not at all, AS. I understand perfectly. You want unrestricted, uncontrolled invasions of this country. Nothing could be clearer. These people aren’t going to our embassies or consulates and requesting sanctuary or asylum. They’re sneaking across our borders in the middle of the desert and, when caught, screaming “asylum!” They’re not even showing up at legitimate ports of entry and requesting it, which is the ONLY alternative to requesting through an embassy/consulate.


#60

You shifted the goal posts then, I was addressing the category for asylum, because John is arguing against the category.

That or you misunderstood.