User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 10:51:39 AM EDT
[#1]
I wasn't a Trump fan, but voted for him...damn, winning never gets old if it enables the destruction of the democRAT party platform.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 10:53:35 AM EDT
[#2]
The only problem is history.
Historically the amnesty reciepients vote dem. See 1980s amnesty for the most recent example. Eta: and it wont be the 800k or 1.8 million either. It will be 5x that many at least, and Trump's base knows that. So this could a miscalculated move imo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 10:55:25 AM EDT
[#3]
It’s nice to be forcing the Democrats to take a bitter compromise for once. It’d be even better if they say no!
This is indeed a win win for us, and a lose lose for them! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 10:56:12 AM EDT
[#4]
https://cis.org/Krikorian/Art-Choke
The White House immigration outline was released today and it's not good. It could change tomorrow, for all we know, but as it stands now, this is a preemptive surrender on several issues.
The enforcement component is fine, as far as it goes – there's no E-Verify, but the White House decided months ago not to push that, thinking it would be a bridge too far for Democrats, since it impacts illegals who are already here. But the amnesty and chain migration components are fatally flawed. The fact that the amnesty would include a path to citizenship (i.e., the beneficiaries would eventually get green cards like regular immigrants) is fine with me – if you're going to amnesty illegal aliens, just rip off the band-aid and get it over with. Instead, the issue is the size of the amnesty, or rather the universe of people who would be amnestied. If – as the White House promised just days ago – the amnesty were confined to those who now actually have DACA work permits (or even those who had them but didn't renew), administering the amnesty would be relatively straightforward. All those people are already in the DHS database, and even if they were all re-examined as part of the amnesty process (to weed out the fraudsters that snuck past Obama's eagle-eyed DHS), it could still be done relatively quickly and with minimal disruption of the work of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the DHS component that deals with green cards, work permits, and the like. But going beyond DACA beneficiaries to those who could have applied but didn't is a different thing. It's not just a difference in degree, but in kind. A whole new process will have to be set up for the 1 million additional people who would be expected to apply. The other work of USCIS would grind to a halt, delaying other legal immigration applications, as happened when DACA was originally implemented (and remember that Obama's DACA amnesty was smaller than what Trump is proposing). In addition, there would be an opportunity cost, with USCIS unable to pursue many urgently needed administrative reforms. What's more, expanding the amnesty beyond DACA beneficiaries is morally dubious. The reason they have a compelling case for amnesty before all enforcement measures and in place and legal immigration curbed is that not only did they arrive here as minors but they voluntarily came forward and provided their information to the government. Those who chose not to do so should not be granted the same extraordinary act of mercy. Then there's the legal immigration "cuts." The outline says that no new applications for the visa lottery and the chain-migration categories would be accepted, limiting family immigration to spouses and minor children. Great! But it also provides for the continuation of those categories (and reallocation of the lottery visas) until the admission of all 4 million people on the current chain-migration waiting lists. This is the same gimmick that was in the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill in 2007 – and the estimate at the time was that it would take 17 years before all those people got their green cards. In other words, legal immigration would not actually be reduced until after President Kamala Harris's successor took office. The Cotton and Goodlatte bills both grandfather people on the waiting list who were within one year of getting their green card applications adjudicated, and refund the application fees for everyone else. This is a reasonable measure, since as the date gets closer, people might be selling property and whatnot as part of their relocation planning. But to wait almost two decades before there's any reduction in legal admissions is absurd. First of all, if we're going to amnesty close to 2 million illegal aliens (and maybe more, since past estimates have proven so woefully wrong), that needs to be offset by immediate reductions elsewhere. What's more this would be yet another example of the other side getting what it wants up front, with promises of things we want in the future. As Popeye's friend J. Wellington Wimpy might have said, "I will gladly reduce immigration on Tuesday for an amnesty today." The White House has botched the DACA issue, cutting Bob Goodlatte's House bill off at the knees and making it more likely that either there will be no bill at all or that any final bill the president signs (which is guaranteed to be even weaker than this) will fatally demoralize Republican voters. If the latter happens, the president will be well on the way to joining Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton in the impeached-but-not removed club. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:03:53 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
https://cis.org/Krikorian/Art-Choke The White House immigration outline was released today and it's not good. It could change tomorrow, for all we know, but as it stands now, this is a preemptive surrender on several issues.
The enforcement component is fine, as far as it goes – there's no E-Verify, but the White House decided months ago not to push that, thinking it would be a bridge too far for Democrats, since it impacts illegals who are already here. But the amnesty and chain migration components are fatally flawed. The fact that the amnesty would include a path to citizenship (i.e., the beneficiaries would eventually get green cards like regular immigrants) is fine with me – if you're going to amnesty illegal aliens, just rip off the band-aid and get it over with. Instead, the issue is the size of the amnesty, or rather the universe of people who would be amnestied. If – as the White House promised just days ago – the amnesty were confined to those who now actually have DACA work permits (or even those who had them but didn't renew), administering the amnesty would be relatively straightforward. All those people are already in the DHS database, and even if they were all re-examined as part of the amnesty process (to weed out the fraudsters that snuck past Obama's eagle-eyed DHS), it could still be done relatively quickly and with minimal disruption of the work of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the DHS component that deals with green cards, work permits, and the like. But going beyond DACA beneficiaries to those who could have applied but didn't is a different thing. It's not just a difference in degree, but in kind. A whole new process will have to be set up for the 1 million additional people who would be expected to apply. The other work of USCIS would grind to a halt, delaying other legal immigration applications, as happened when DACA was originally implemented (and remember that Obama's DACA amnesty was smaller than what Trump is proposing). In addition, there would be an opportunity cost, with USCIS unable to pursue many urgently needed administrative reforms. What's more, expanding the amnesty beyond DACA beneficiaries is morally dubious. The reason they have a compelling case for amnesty before all enforcement measures and in place and legal immigration curbed is that not only did they arrive here as minors but they voluntarily came forward and provided their information to the government. Those who chose not to do so should not be granted the same extraordinary act of mercy. Then there's the legal immigration "cuts." The outline says that no new applications for the visa lottery and the chain-migration categories would be accepted, limiting family immigration to spouses and minor children. Great! But it also provides for the continuation of those categories (and reallocation of the lottery visas) until the admission of all 4 million people on the current chain-migration waiting lists. This is the same gimmick that was in the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill in 2007 – and the estimate at the time was that it would take 17 years before all those people got their green cards. In other words, legal immigration would not actually be reduced until after President Kamala Harris's successor took office. The Cotton and Goodlatte bills both grandfather people on the waiting list who were within one year of getting their green card applications adjudicated, and refund the application fees for everyone else. This is a reasonable measure, since as the date gets closer, people might be selling property and whatnot as part of their relocation planning. But to wait almost two decades before there's any reduction in legal admissions is absurd. First of all, if we're going to amnesty close to 2 million illegal aliens (and maybe more, since past estimates have proven so woefully wrong), that needs to be offset by immediate reductions elsewhere. What's more this would be yet another example of the other side getting what it wants up front, with promises of things we want in the future. As Popeye's friend J. Wellington Wimpy might have said, "I will gladly reduce immigration on Tuesday for an amnesty today." The White House has botched the DACA issue, cutting Bob Goodlatte's House bill off at the knees and making it more likely that either there will be no bill at all or that any final bill the president signs (which is guaranteed to be even weaker than this) will fatally demoralize Republican voters. If the latter happens, the president will be well on the way to joining Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton in the impeached-but-not removed club. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:08:05 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think it's premature to assess the merits of any deal, since there isn't any deal. Sometimes, negotiating involves offering things that you have no intention of giving. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
https://cis.org/Krikorian/Art-Choke The White House immigration outline was released today and it's not good. It could change tomorrow, for all we know, but as it stands now, this is a preemptive surrender on several issues.
The enforcement component is fine, as far as it goes – there's no E-Verify, but the White House decided months ago not to push that, thinking it would be a bridge too far for Democrats, since it impacts illegals who are already here. But the amnesty and chain migration components are fatally flawed. The fact that the amnesty would include a path to citizenship (i.e., the beneficiaries would eventually get green cards like regular immigrants) is fine with me – if you're going to amnesty illegal aliens, just rip off the band-aid and get it over with. Instead, the issue is the size of the amnesty, or rather the universe of people who would be amnestied. If – as the White House promised just days ago – the amnesty were confined to those who now actually have DACA work permits (or even those who had them but didn't renew), administering the amnesty would be relatively straightforward. All those people are already in the DHS database, and even if they were all re-examined as part of the amnesty process (to weed out the fraudsters that snuck past Obama's eagle-eyed DHS), it could still be done relatively quickly and with minimal disruption of the work of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the DHS component that deals with green cards, work permits, and the like. But going beyond DACA beneficiaries to those who could have applied but didn't is a different thing. It's not just a difference in degree, but in kind. A whole new process will have to be set up for the 1 million additional people who would be expected to apply. The other work of USCIS would grind to a halt, delaying other legal immigration applications, as happened when DACA was originally implemented (and remember that Obama's DACA amnesty was smaller than what Trump is proposing). In addition, there would be an opportunity cost, with USCIS unable to pursue many urgently needed administrative reforms. What's more, expanding the amnesty beyond DACA beneficiaries is morally dubious. The reason they have a compelling case for amnesty before all enforcement measures and in place and legal immigration curbed is that not only did they arrive here as minors but they voluntarily came forward and provided their information to the government. Those who chose not to do so should not be granted the same extraordinary act of mercy. Then there's the legal immigration "cuts." The outline says that no new applications for the visa lottery and the chain-migration categories would be accepted, limiting family immigration to spouses and minor children. Great! But it also provides for the continuation of those categories (and reallocation of the lottery visas) until the admission of all 4 million people on the current chain-migration waiting lists. This is the same gimmick that was in the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill in 2007 – and the estimate at the time was that it would take 17 years before all those people got their green cards. In other words, legal immigration would not actually be reduced until after President Kamala Harris's successor took office. The Cotton and Goodlatte bills both grandfather people on the waiting list who were within one year of getting their green card applications adjudicated, and refund the application fees for everyone else. This is a reasonable measure, since as the date gets closer, people might be selling property and whatnot as part of their relocation planning. But to wait almost two decades before there's any reduction in legal admissions is absurd. First of all, if we're going to amnesty close to 2 million illegal aliens (and maybe more, since past estimates have proven so woefully wrong), that needs to be offset by immediate reductions elsewhere. What's more this would be yet another example of the other side getting what it wants up front, with promises of things we want in the future. As Popeye's friend J. Wellington Wimpy might have said, "I will gladly reduce immigration on Tuesday for an amnesty today." The White House has botched the DACA issue, cutting Bob Goodlatte's House bill off at the knees and making it more likely that either there will be no bill at all or that any final bill the president signs (which is guaranteed to be even weaker than this) will fatally demoralize Republican voters. If the latter happens, the president will be well on the way to joining Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton in the impeached-but-not removed club. ...it might be wise for me to first offer him, say... $40,000 for the car? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:14:26 AM EDT
[#7]
You guys know chain migration isn't going anywhere and neither is the visa lottery?
They simply "cant" end chain migration unless the INA gets changed and the plan is already to end the "lottery" and just have the diversity visa absorb those #'s.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:15:50 AM EDT
[#8]
It's a good political move but an amnesty is a losing situation for the country as a whole. It needs to be merit based. We should be trying to attract the best of the best in professional fields instead of giving welfare mamas a pass.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:16:20 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if I want to buy a car from a used car dealer who is asking $20,000... ...it might be wise for me to first offer him, say... $40,000 for the car? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://cis.org/Krikorian/Art-Choke The White House immigration outline was released today and it's not good. It could change tomorrow, for all we know, but as it stands now, this is a preemptive surrender on several issues.
The enforcement component is fine, as far as it goes – there's no E-Verify, but the White House decided months ago not to push that, thinking it would be a bridge too far for Democrats, since it impacts illegals who are already here. But the amnesty and chain migration components are fatally flawed. The fact that the amnesty would include a path to citizenship (i.e., the beneficiaries would eventually get green cards like regular immigrants) is fine with me – if you're going to amnesty illegal aliens, just rip off the band-aid and get it over with. Instead, the issue is the size of the amnesty, or rather the universe of people who would be amnestied. If – as the White House promised just days ago – the amnesty were confined to those who now actually have DACA work permits (or even those who had them but didn't renew), administering the amnesty would be relatively straightforward. All those people are already in the DHS database, and even if they were all re-examined as part of the amnesty process (to weed out the fraudsters that snuck past Obama's eagle-eyed DHS), it could still be done relatively quickly and with minimal disruption of the work of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the DHS component that deals with green cards, work permits, and the like. But going beyond DACA beneficiaries to those who could have applied but didn't is a different thing. It's not just a difference in degree, but in kind. A whole new process will have to be set up for the 1 million additional people who would be expected to apply. The other work of USCIS would grind to a halt, delaying other legal immigration applications, as happened when DACA was originally implemented (and remember that Obama's DACA amnesty was smaller than what Trump is proposing). In addition, there would be an opportunity cost, with USCIS unable to pursue many urgently needed administrative reforms. What's more, expanding the amnesty beyond DACA beneficiaries is morally dubious. The reason they have a compelling case for amnesty before all enforcement measures and in place and legal immigration curbed is that not only did they arrive here as minors but they voluntarily came forward and provided their information to the government. Those who chose not to do so should not be granted the same extraordinary act of mercy. Then there's the legal immigration "cuts." The outline says that no new applications for the visa lottery and the chain-migration categories would be accepted, limiting family immigration to spouses and minor children. Great! But it also provides for the continuation of those categories (and reallocation of the lottery visas) until the admission of all 4 million people on the current chain-migration waiting lists. This is the same gimmick that was in the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill in 2007 – and the estimate at the time was that it would take 17 years before all those people got their green cards. In other words, legal immigration would not actually be reduced until after President Kamala Harris's successor took office. The Cotton and Goodlatte bills both grandfather people on the waiting list who were within one year of getting their green card applications adjudicated, and refund the application fees for everyone else. This is a reasonable measure, since as the date gets closer, people might be selling property and whatnot as part of their relocation planning. But to wait almost two decades before there's any reduction in legal admissions is absurd. First of all, if we're going to amnesty close to 2 million illegal aliens (and maybe more, since past estimates have proven so woefully wrong), that needs to be offset by immediate reductions elsewhere. What's more this would be yet another example of the other side getting what it wants up front, with promises of things we want in the future. As Popeye's friend J. Wellington Wimpy might have said, "I will gladly reduce immigration on Tuesday for an amnesty today." The White House has botched the DACA issue, cutting Bob Goodlatte's House bill off at the knees and making it more likely that either there will be no bill at all or that any final bill the president signs (which is guaranteed to be even weaker than this) will fatally demoralize Republican voters. If the latter happens, the president will be well on the way to joining Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton in the impeached-but-not removed club. ...it might be wise for me to first offer him, say... $40,000 for the car? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:16:43 AM EDT
[#10]
The number of "dreamers" that will turn to vote republican if all granted amnesty or god forbid citizenship - probably low single digit percentage.
Most are not well educated professionals, they are even running news stories now how restaurant kitchen works and construction labor jobs would be the hardest hit if they were all sent back. And all this time we were told how these were soldiers, law enforcement, doctors, engineers, teachers, and so on with professional training. What it might accomplish if their is a deal that ends up with a wall, end to chain migration and the visa lottery, is it will anger the democrat base, and potentially fracture that party. So 20-30% would form a communist party, maybe 50-75% a socialist light pro abortion party, and then the rest probably become independents. Few will change over to republicans. What should happen is a case by case review. Allow the skilled and professionally trained to stay. But they do not automatically get citiznship, and most importantly, the voting rights the demcrats wanted them here for. If they have any felony record, and are unskilled - gone. If they have been using a fake SSN - out. Violent offenders - the worst never see the light of day again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:17:09 AM EDT
[#11]
LOL
Here come the "expert" negotiators who know better than a billionaire President. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:17:58 AM EDT
[#12]
How about make then resident legal aliens. No more anchor baby's and the ones here can never vote. This would expose the dems as not really caring for the illegals as they just want their votes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:20:05 AM EDT
[#13]
I withhold judgement until this plays out. It’s way too early to tell. Everything will likely change.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:20:55 AM EDT
[#14]
I think his best bet is a compromise.
we offer to give those 800,000 people citizenship... that gets a shitload of pressure coming from the left, and illegals on democrats to pass it... in return, trump demands wall funding, merit based immigration, and hell, voter ID and whatever else he can cram into it.. all the left will hear is democrats are refusing to pass legislation / blocking daca citizenship. I damn sure hope ANY kind of citizenship legislation gets a LOT of shit in return... vs the dumbass republicans usual bullshit of give it away free with nothing in return. I'm not a fan of making them citizens myself, but it would be worth doing were we to get wall funding, voter id, and merit based immigration.. when they start talking about making more illegals legal.. start attaching pro gun shit to it, etc.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:21:06 AM EDT
[#15]
Chuck Schumer shut the government down because of DACA. He had liberal activists and open boarder agitators protesting outside his house.
What does Trump do three days later? Gives Schumer 90% of what he wanted BRILLIANT!!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:21:15 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, you offer him $15,000 and a hand job. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://cis.org/Krikorian/Art-Choke The White House immigration outline was released today and it's not good. It could change tomorrow, for all we know, but as it stands now, this is a preemptive surrender on several issues.
The enforcement component is fine, as far as it goes – there's no E-Verify, but the White House decided months ago not to push that, thinking it would be a bridge too far for Democrats, since it impacts illegals who are already here. But the amnesty and chain migration components are fatally flawed. The fact that the amnesty would include a path to citizenship (i.e., the beneficiaries would eventually get green cards like regular immigrants) is fine with me – if you're going to amnesty illegal aliens, just rip off the band-aid and get it over with. Instead, the issue is the size of the amnesty, or rather the universe of people who would be amnestied. If – as the White House promised just days ago – the amnesty were confined to those who now actually have DACA work permits (or even those who had them but didn't renew), administering the amnesty would be relatively straightforward. All those people are already in the DHS database, and even if they were all re-examined as part of the amnesty process (to weed out the fraudsters that snuck past Obama's eagle-eyed DHS), it could still be done relatively quickly and with minimal disruption of the work of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the DHS component that deals with green cards, work permits, and the like. But going beyond DACA beneficiaries to those who could have applied but didn't is a different thing. It's not just a difference in degree, but in kind. A whole new process will have to be set up for the 1 million additional people who would be expected to apply. The other work of USCIS would grind to a halt, delaying other legal immigration applications, as happened when DACA was originally implemented (and remember that Obama's DACA amnesty was smaller than what Trump is proposing). In addition, there would be an opportunity cost, with USCIS unable to pursue many urgently needed administrative reforms. What's more, expanding the amnesty beyond DACA beneficiaries is morally dubious. The reason they have a compelling case for amnesty before all enforcement measures and in place and legal immigration curbed is that not only did they arrive here as minors but they voluntarily came forward and provided their information to the government. Those who chose not to do so should not be granted the same extraordinary act of mercy. Then there's the legal immigration "cuts." The outline says that no new applications for the visa lottery and the chain-migration categories would be accepted, limiting family immigration to spouses and minor children. Great! But it also provides for the continuation of those categories (and reallocation of the lottery visas) until the admission of all 4 million people on the current chain-migration waiting lists. This is the same gimmick that was in the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill in 2007 – and the estimate at the time was that it would take 17 years before all those people got their green cards. In other words, legal immigration would not actually be reduced until after President Kamala Harris's successor took office. The Cotton and Goodlatte bills both grandfather people on the waiting list who were within one year of getting their green card applications adjudicated, and refund the application fees for everyone else. This is a reasonable measure, since as the date gets closer, people might be selling property and whatnot as part of their relocation planning. But to wait almost two decades before there's any reduction in legal admissions is absurd. First of all, if we're going to amnesty close to 2 million illegal aliens (and maybe more, since past estimates have proven so woefully wrong), that needs to be offset by immediate reductions elsewhere. What's more this would be yet another example of the other side getting what it wants up front, with promises of things we want in the future. As Popeye's friend J. Wellington Wimpy might have said, "I will gladly reduce immigration on Tuesday for an amnesty today." The White House has botched the DACA issue, cutting Bob Goodlatte's House bill off at the knees and making it more likely that either there will be no bill at all or that any final bill the president signs (which is guaranteed to be even weaker than this) will fatally demoralize Republican voters. If the latter happens, the president will be well on the way to joining Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton in the impeached-but-not removed club. ...it might be wise for me to first offer him, say... $40,000 for the car? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:22:03 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a good political move but an amnesty is a losing situation for the country as a whole. It needs to be merit based. We should be trying to attract the best of the best in professional fields instead of giving welfare mamas a pass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:22:58 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL Here come the "expert" negotiators who know better than a billionaire President. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:23:34 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about make then resident legal aliens. No more anchor baby's and the ones here can never vote. This would expose the dems as not really caring for the illegals as they just want their votes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:23:58 AM EDT
[#20]
I bet the bulk of the DACA leeches are already voting. I would also bet they already live in largely democratic controlled shitholes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:25:03 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. While I don't like the idea of amnesty for anyone, I trust that DJT knows wayyyy more than I do about negotiating a deal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
LOL Here come the "expert" negotiators who know better than a billionaire President. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:25:47 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So my 18500 and a hummer was a bad deal? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://cis.org/Krikorian/Art-Choke The White House immigration outline was released today and it's not good. It could change tomorrow, for all we know, but as it stands now, this is a preemptive surrender on several issues.
The enforcement component is fine, as far as it goes – there's no E-Verify, but the White House decided months ago not to push that, thinking it would be a bridge too far for Democrats, since it impacts illegals who are already here. But the amnesty and chain migration components are fatally flawed. The fact that the amnesty would include a path to citizenship (i.e., the beneficiaries would eventually get green cards like regular immigrants) is fine with me – if you're going to amnesty illegal aliens, just rip off the band-aid and get it over with. Instead, the issue is the size of the amnesty, or rather the universe of people who would be amnestied. If – as the White House promised just days ago – the amnesty were confined to those who now actually have DACA work permits (or even those who had them but didn't renew), administering the amnesty would be relatively straightforward. All those people are already in the DHS database, and even if they were all re-examined as part of the amnesty process (to weed out the fraudsters that snuck past Obama's eagle-eyed DHS), it could still be done relatively quickly and with minimal disruption of the work of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the DHS component that deals with green cards, work permits, and the like. But going beyond DACA beneficiaries to those who could have applied but didn't is a different thing. It's not just a difference in degree, but in kind. A whole new process will have to be set up for the 1 million additional people who would be expected to apply. The other work of USCIS would grind to a halt, delaying other legal immigration applications, as happened when DACA was originally implemented (and remember that Obama's DACA amnesty was smaller than what Trump is proposing). In addition, there would be an opportunity cost, with USCIS unable to pursue many urgently needed administrative reforms. What's more, expanding the amnesty beyond DACA beneficiaries is morally dubious. The reason they have a compelling case for amnesty before all enforcement measures and in place and legal immigration curbed is that not only did they arrive here as minors but they voluntarily came forward and provided their information to the government. Those who chose not to do so should not be granted the same extraordinary act of mercy. Then there's the legal immigration "cuts." The outline says that no new applications for the visa lottery and the chain-migration categories would be accepted, limiting family immigration to spouses and minor children. Great! But it also provides for the continuation of those categories (and reallocation of the lottery visas) until the admission of all 4 million people on the current chain-migration waiting lists. This is the same gimmick that was in the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill in 2007 – and the estimate at the time was that it would take 17 years before all those people got their green cards. In other words, legal immigration would not actually be reduced until after President Kamala Harris's successor took office. The Cotton and Goodlatte bills both grandfather people on the waiting list who were within one year of getting their green card applications adjudicated, and refund the application fees for everyone else. This is a reasonable measure, since as the date gets closer, people might be selling property and whatnot as part of their relocation planning. But to wait almost two decades before there's any reduction in legal admissions is absurd. First of all, if we're going to amnesty close to 2 million illegal aliens (and maybe more, since past estimates have proven so woefully wrong), that needs to be offset by immediate reductions elsewhere. What's more this would be yet another example of the other side getting what it wants up front, with promises of things we want in the future. As Popeye's friend J. Wellington Wimpy might have said, "I will gladly reduce immigration on Tuesday for an amnesty today." The White House has botched the DACA issue, cutting Bob Goodlatte's House bill off at the knees and making it more likely that either there will be no bill at all or that any final bill the president signs (which is guaranteed to be even weaker than this) will fatally demoralize Republican voters. If the latter happens, the president will be well on the way to joining Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton in the impeached-but-not removed club. ...it might be wise for me to first offer him, say... $40,000 for the car? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:25:52 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about make then resident legal aliens. No more anchor baby's and the ones here can never vote. This would expose the dems as not really caring for the illegals as they just want their votes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:26:53 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The number of "dreamers" that will turn to vote republican if all granted amnesty or god forbid citizenship - probably low single digit percentage. Most are not well educated professionals, they are even running news stories now how restaurant kitchen works and construction labor jobs would be the hardest hit if they were all sent back. And all this time we were told how these were soldiers, law enforcement, doctors, engineers, teachers, and so on with professional training. What it might accomplish if their is a deal that ends up with a wall, end to chain migration and the visa lottery, is it will anger the democrat base, and potentially fracture that party. So 20-30% would form a communist party, maybe 50-75% a socialist light pro abortion party, and then the rest probably become independents. Few will change over to republicans. What should happen is a case by case review. Allow the skilled and professionally trained to stay. But they do not automatically get citiznship, and most importantly, the voting rights the demcrats wanted them here for. If they have any felony record, and are unskilled - gone. If they have been using a fake SSN - out. Violent offenders - the worst never see the light of day again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:28:31 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, you offer him $15,000 and a hand job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:29:34 AM EDT
[#26]
If we give amnesty, it should be as limited as possible. Assume 10 relatives per newly minted American. That makes maybe double digit MILLION voters, 98%+ will vote Democrat. How close were some races????
the replacement of us with them is the Democrat's plan for permanent power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:30:29 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
And is it a stretch that the dreamers (who lets face it, they aren’t going anywhere) may become conservative voters after owing their citizenship to trump? Every poll shows that immigrant groups in America (with some small exceptions) ALWAYS VOTE DEM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:31:02 AM EDT
[#28]
Shit or get off the pot - We’re going to need to do it sooner or later.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:31:18 AM EDT
[#29]
"We have a deal! All illegal immigrants are now qualified for full citizenship and immediate welfare benefits with back pay up to 10 years. To take advantage of this offer you must report to your local Amnesty Processing Center within 24 hours, with proof of non-citizenship (coyote receipts are accepted). Please ignore the ICE agents and fleet of buses, they're for an entirely unrelated matter"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:32:15 AM EDT
[#30]
The only thing I would add is to reduce the number of legal immigrants from a country by the number of DACA folks from that country. This way, there is no impact on voting patterns.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:33:40 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So if I want to buy a car from a used car dealer who is asking $20,000... ...it might be wise for me to first offer him, say... $40,000 for the car? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://cis.org/Krikorian/Art-Choke The White House immigration outline was released today and it's not good. It could change tomorrow, for all we know, but as it stands now, this is a preemptive surrender on several issues.
The enforcement component is fine, as far as it goes – there's no E-Verify, but the White House decided months ago not to push that, thinking it would be a bridge too far for Democrats, since it impacts illegals who are already here. But the amnesty and chain migration components are fatally flawed. The fact that the amnesty would include a path to citizenship (i.e., the beneficiaries would eventually get green cards like regular immigrants) is fine with me – if you're going to amnesty illegal aliens, just rip off the band-aid and get it over with. Instead, the issue is the size of the amnesty, or rather the universe of people who would be amnestied. If – as the White House promised just days ago – the amnesty were confined to those who now actually have DACA work permits (or even those who had them but didn't renew), administering the amnesty would be relatively straightforward. All those people are already in the DHS database, and even if they were all re-examined as part of the amnesty process (to weed out the fraudsters that snuck past Obama's eagle-eyed DHS), it could still be done relatively quickly and with minimal disruption of the work of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the DHS component that deals with green cards, work permits, and the like. But going beyond DACA beneficiaries to those who could have applied but didn't is a different thing. It's not just a difference in degree, but in kind. A whole new process will have to be set up for the 1 million additional people who would be expected to apply. The other work of USCIS would grind to a halt, delaying other legal immigration applications, as happened when DACA was originally implemented (and remember that Obama's DACA amnesty was smaller than what Trump is proposing). In addition, there would be an opportunity cost, with USCIS unable to pursue many urgently needed administrative reforms. What's more, expanding the amnesty beyond DACA beneficiaries is morally dubious. The reason they have a compelling case for amnesty before all enforcement measures and in place and legal immigration curbed is that not only did they arrive here as minors but they voluntarily came forward and provided their information to the government. Those who chose not to do so should not be granted the same extraordinary act of mercy. Then there's the legal immigration "cuts." The outline says that no new applications for the visa lottery and the chain-migration categories would be accepted, limiting family immigration to spouses and minor children. Great! But it also provides for the continuation of those categories (and reallocation of the lottery visas) until the admission of all 4 million people on the current chain-migration waiting lists. This is the same gimmick that was in the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill in 2007 – and the estimate at the time was that it would take 17 years before all those people got their green cards. In other words, legal immigration would not actually be reduced until after President Kamala Harris's successor took office. The Cotton and Goodlatte bills both grandfather people on the waiting list who were within one year of getting their green card applications adjudicated, and refund the application fees for everyone else. This is a reasonable measure, since as the date gets closer, people might be selling property and whatnot as part of their relocation planning. But to wait almost two decades before there's any reduction in legal admissions is absurd. First of all, if we're going to amnesty close to 2 million illegal aliens (and maybe more, since past estimates have proven so woefully wrong), that needs to be offset by immediate reductions elsewhere. What's more this would be yet another example of the other side getting what it wants up front, with promises of things we want in the future. As Popeye's friend J. Wellington Wimpy might have said, "I will gladly reduce immigration on Tuesday for an amnesty today." The White House has botched the DACA issue, cutting Bob Goodlatte's House bill off at the knees and making it more likely that either there will be no bill at all or that any final bill the president signs (which is guaranteed to be even weaker than this) will fatally demoralize Republican voters. If the latter happens, the president will be well on the way to joining Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton in the impeached-but-not removed club. ...it might be wise for me to first offer him, say... $40,000 for the car? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:34:55 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes it is. I don't know why people still believe this bullshit. Every poll shows that immigrant groups in America (with some small exceptions) ALWAYS VOTE DEM. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
And is it a stretch that the dreamers (who lets face it, they aren’t going anywhere) may become conservative voters after owing their citizenship to trump? Every poll shows that immigrant groups in America (with some small exceptions) ALWAYS VOTE DEM. Fuck them, they should be deported. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:45:02 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I know you aren't that stupid. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://cis.org/Krikorian/Art-Choke The White House immigration outline was released today and it's not good. It could change tomorrow, for all we know, but as it stands now, this is a preemptive surrender on several issues.
The enforcement component is fine, as far as it goes – there's no E-Verify, but the White House decided months ago not to push that, thinking it would be a bridge too far for Democrats, since it impacts illegals who are already here. But the amnesty and chain migration components are fatally flawed. The fact that the amnesty would include a path to citizenship (i.e., the beneficiaries would eventually get green cards like regular immigrants) is fine with me – if you're going to amnesty illegal aliens, just rip off the band-aid and get it over with. Instead, the issue is the size of the amnesty, or rather the universe of people who would be amnestied. If – as the White House promised just days ago – the amnesty were confined to those who now actually have DACA work permits (or even those who had them but didn't renew), administering the amnesty would be relatively straightforward. All those people are already in the DHS database, and even if they were all re-examined as part of the amnesty process (to weed out the fraudsters that snuck past Obama's eagle-eyed DHS), it could still be done relatively quickly and with minimal disruption of the work of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the DHS component that deals with green cards, work permits, and the like. But going beyond DACA beneficiaries to those who could have applied but didn't is a different thing. It's not just a difference in degree, but in kind. A whole new process will have to be set up for the 1 million additional people who would be expected to apply. The other work of USCIS would grind to a halt, delaying other legal immigration applications, as happened when DACA was originally implemented (and remember that Obama's DACA amnesty was smaller than what Trump is proposing). In addition, there would be an opportunity cost, with USCIS unable to pursue many urgently needed administrative reforms. What's more, expanding the amnesty beyond DACA beneficiaries is morally dubious. The reason they have a compelling case for amnesty before all enforcement measures and in place and legal immigration curbed is that not only did they arrive here as minors but they voluntarily came forward and provided their information to the government. Those who chose not to do so should not be granted the same extraordinary act of mercy. Then there's the legal immigration "cuts." The outline says that no new applications for the visa lottery and the chain-migration categories would be accepted, limiting family immigration to spouses and minor children. Great! But it also provides for the continuation of those categories (and reallocation of the lottery visas) until the admission of all 4 million people on the current chain-migration waiting lists. This is the same gimmick that was in the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill in 2007 – and the estimate at the time was that it would take 17 years before all those people got their green cards. In other words, legal immigration would not actually be reduced until after President Kamala Harris's successor took office. The Cotton and Goodlatte bills both grandfather people on the waiting list who were within one year of getting their green card applications adjudicated, and refund the application fees for everyone else. This is a reasonable measure, since as the date gets closer, people might be selling property and whatnot as part of their relocation planning. But to wait almost two decades before there's any reduction in legal admissions is absurd. First of all, if we're going to amnesty close to 2 million illegal aliens (and maybe more, since past estimates have proven so woefully wrong), that needs to be offset by immediate reductions elsewhere. What's more this would be yet another example of the other side getting what it wants up front, with promises of things we want in the future. As Popeye's friend J. Wellington Wimpy might have said, "I will gladly reduce immigration on Tuesday for an amnesty today." The White House has botched the DACA issue, cutting Bob Goodlatte's House bill off at the knees and making it more likely that either there will be no bill at all or that any final bill the president signs (which is guaranteed to be even weaker than this) will fatally demoralize Republican voters. If the latter happens, the president will be well on the way to joining Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton in the impeached-but-not removed club. ...it might be wise for me to first offer him, say... $40,000 for the car? Every aspect of the deal is bad. More than double the DACA number are made legal. AND they are given a "path to citizenship." Chain migration continues for decades. Money for the Wall will vanish with the next Administration or with a Democrat Congress. From there, where do you go? Right now, the President has the power to deport them. He has the power to reinforce the border. He can end chain migration and the lottery. But he chooses not to... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:47:07 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Fuck them, they should be deported. If the republicans can score political points going into the midterms, even better. 7 more years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:47:31 AM EDT
[#35]
Every libturd I know says th economy boom is thanks to Obama, nothing to do with Trump... They won’t see it the correct way, no matter how obvious.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:47:38 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
LOL Here come the "expert" negotiators who know better than a billionaire President. There is quite a difference between negotiating a deal in the private sector than negotiating government legislation |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:48:17 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then you explain it. Every aspect of the deal is bad. More than double the DACA number are made legal. AND they are given a "path to citizenship." Chain migration continues for decades. Money for the Wall will vanish with the next Administration or with a Democrat Congress. From there, where do you go? Right now, the President has the power to deport them. He has the power to reinforce the border. He can end chain migration and the lottery. But he chooses not to... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
https://cis.org/Krikorian/Art-Choke The White House immigration outline was released today and it's not good. It could change tomorrow, for all we know, but as it stands now, this is a preemptive surrender on several issues.
The enforcement component is fine, as far as it goes – there's no E-Verify, but the White House decided months ago not to push that, thinking it would be a bridge too far for Democrats, since it impacts illegals who are already here. But the amnesty and chain migration components are fatally flawed. The fact that the amnesty would include a path to citizenship (i.e., the beneficiaries would eventually get green cards like regular immigrants) is fine with me – if you're going to amnesty illegal aliens, just rip off the band-aid and get it over with. Instead, the issue is the size of the amnesty, or rather the universe of people who would be amnestied. If – as the White House promised just days ago – the amnesty were confined to those who now actually have DACA work permits (or even those who had them but didn't renew), administering the amnesty would be relatively straightforward. All those people are already in the DHS database, and even if they were all re-examined as part of the amnesty process (to weed out the fraudsters that snuck past Obama's eagle-eyed DHS), it could still be done relatively quickly and with minimal disruption of the work of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the DHS component that deals with green cards, work permits, and the like. But going beyond DACA beneficiaries to those who could have applied but didn't is a different thing. It's not just a difference in degree, but in kind. A whole new process will have to be set up for the 1 million additional people who would be expected to apply. The other work of USCIS would grind to a halt, delaying other legal immigration applications, as happened when DACA was originally implemented (and remember that Obama's DACA amnesty was smaller than what Trump is proposing). In addition, there would be an opportunity cost, with USCIS unable to pursue many urgently needed administrative reforms. What's more, expanding the amnesty beyond DACA beneficiaries is morally dubious. The reason they have a compelling case for amnesty before all enforcement measures and in place and legal immigration curbed is that not only did they arrive here as minors but they voluntarily came forward and provided their information to the government. Those who chose not to do so should not be granted the same extraordinary act of mercy. Then there's the legal immigration "cuts." The outline says that no new applications for the visa lottery and the chain-migration categories would be accepted, limiting family immigration to spouses and minor children. Great! But it also provides for the continuation of those categories (and reallocation of the lottery visas) until the admission of all 4 million people on the current chain-migration waiting lists. This is the same gimmick that was in the Hagel-Martinez amnesty bill in 2007 – and the estimate at the time was that it would take 17 years before all those people got their green cards. In other words, legal immigration would not actually be reduced until after President Kamala Harris's successor took office. The Cotton and Goodlatte bills both grandfather people on the waiting list who were within one year of getting their green card applications adjudicated, and refund the application fees for everyone else. This is a reasonable measure, since as the date gets closer, people might be selling property and whatnot as part of their relocation planning. But to wait almost two decades before there's any reduction in legal admissions is absurd. First of all, if we're going to amnesty close to 2 million illegal aliens (and maybe more, since past estimates have proven so woefully wrong), that needs to be offset by immediate reductions elsewhere. What's more this would be yet another example of the other side getting what it wants up front, with promises of things we want in the future. As Popeye's friend J. Wellington Wimpy might have said, "I will gladly reduce immigration on Tuesday for an amnesty today." The White House has botched the DACA issue, cutting Bob Goodlatte's House bill off at the knees and making it more likely that either there will be no bill at all or that any final bill the president signs (which is guaranteed to be even weaker than this) will fatally demoralize Republican voters. If the latter happens, the president will be well on the way to joining Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton in the impeached-but-not removed club. ...it might be wise for me to first offer him, say... $40,000 for the car? Every aspect of the deal is bad. More than double the DACA number are made legal. AND they are given a "path to citizenship." Chain migration continues for decades. Money for the Wall will vanish with the next Administration or with a Democrat Congress. From there, where do you go? Right now, the President has the power to deport them. He has the power to reinforce the border. He can end chain migration and the lottery. But he chooses not to... Is it possible Trump is offering them what they want knowing it will be rejected due to the wall, chain migration etc... WHO looks bad when dems refuse the offer on DACA? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:48:52 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: If i want to negotiate a land deal or grab some real estate, i'm sure Trump would negotiate quite a deal There is quite a difference between negotiating a deal in the private sector than negotiating government legislation |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:49:14 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why do you assume this is the final outcome? Has a bill been voted on yet? Is it possible Trump is offering them what they want knowing it will be rejected due to the wall, chain migration etc... WHO looks bad when dems refuse the offer on DACA? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:49:57 AM EDT
[#40]
If Trump actually made a deal remotely close to what is being discussed he’s done for 2020. I would’t vote for him that for sure. Immigration reform was probably his #1 campaign promise.
We all know to get anything through it will involve way more than people currently on the DACA lists. They passed a bill to build a wall in the past and didn’t follow through on all of it. I’m not crazy, and I’m not going to believe the government will actually follow through after it’s failed considerably more than three times to fix immigration policy. Christ the government doesn’t even enforce current laws. Any deal that doesn’t do these x number of thingsthing first prior to the DACA crap is a lose lose for the country. Everything agreed to has to be contingent on follow through and nothing can go beyond the current DACA list or it’s the same as the gang of 8 retarded plan from a few years ago. I barely trust Trump, and I certainly do not trust anyone after Trump to follow through. If Trump does this, my trust for him is gone also. Build a wall Fix and enforce the removal of chain migration Remove all anchor baby laws Create rules and requirements for all immigrants to meet - not everyone who wants to get in, get in. Have skills, and be more than just another citizen sucking at the teets of entitlements. Throw in voter ID requirement for All DACA and future immigrants, since we know it would never pass for all current citizens because of the democraps Then DACA recipients 800,000 to 1.5 mill or whatever are given amnesty. Anything less would be uncivilized. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:50:36 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You've done a lot of both? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: If i want to negotiate a land deal or grab some real estate, i'm sure Trump would negotiate quite a deal There is quite a difference between negotiating a deal in the private sector than negotiating government legislation |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:51:04 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I agree. But you know how we laugh at the absurdity anytime leftists talk about gun confiscation? I view deportation in a similar manner: it simply isn’t realistic. Instead, make it much more difficult for them to get here, and remove any incentives for doing so. The problem will take care of itself. If the republicans can score political points going into the midterms, even better. 7 more years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: Fuck them, they should be deported. If the republicans can score political points going into the midterms, even better. 7 more years. Sure, deporting them all is a logistical and political nightmare, but that doesn't mean they should be offered citizenship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:52:02 AM EDT
[#43]
They will not vote Republican, but we can only hope they stay in California or Texas.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:53:51 AM EDT
[#44]
I don’t understand how anyone could think that amnesty to millions of illegals could be a good idea under any circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:54:05 AM EDT
[#45]
The dreamers, their children, their grandchildren and 95% of every other illegal will reliably vote democrat long enough to guarantee that our choices 10 or 15 years from now will be between a Bernie type moderate, a Hillary type right winger and a Chavez type. Lindsay Graham will be the Ron Paul of that world.
If we give any illegals the vote we are fucked. There is no master plan that will overcome that fact. 800,000 becomes 1.8 million which will turn into 3.6 million which will morph into 30 million. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:54:19 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But when Leftists finally recognize that they can't confiscate all firearms, they don't then offer to make all illegal machine guns legal as a compromise. Sure, deporting them all is a logistical and political nightmare, but that doesn't mean they should be offered citizenship. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Fuck them, they should be deported. If the republicans can score political points going into the midterms, even better. 7 more years. Sure, deporting them all is a logistical and political nightmare, but that doesn't mean they should be offered citizenship. Is not the same as being offered citizenship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:55:31 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only problem is history. Historically the amnesty reciepients vote dem. See 1980s amnesty for the most recent example. Eta: and it wont be the 800k or 1.8 million either. It will be 5x that many at least, and Trump's base knows that. So this could a miscalculated move imo. ETA: If it were truly genius, DACA "kids" wouldn't get anything until the wall is built. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:56:18 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Path way to citizenship (details of requirements not public knowledge yet) Is not the same as being offered citizenship. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: Fuck them, they should be deported. If the republicans can score political points going into the midterms, even better. 7 more years. Sure, deporting them all is a logistical and political nightmare, but that doesn't mean they should be offered citizenship. Is not the same as being offered citizenship. By allowing them to stay and giving them a "pathway", a new congress could legalize them and grant them the right to vote |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:56:55 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If i want to negotiate a land deal or grab some real estate, i'm sure Trump would negotiate quite a deal There is quite a difference between negotiating a deal in the private sector than negotiating government legislation Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
LOL Here come the "expert" negotiators who know better than a billionaire President. There is quite a difference between negotiating a deal in the private sector than negotiating government legislation |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2018 11:57:24 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are supposedly 800,000 DACA kids. Why are we offering it to 1.8 million Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The only problem is history. Historically the amnesty reciepients vote dem. See 1980s amnesty for the most recent example. Eta: and it wont be the 800k or 1.8 million either. It will be 5x that many at least, and Trump's base knows that. So this could a miscalculated move imo. How they got that number and why they didnt register remains a mystery |
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
