"What is the Democrats' message?"

[edward37]

now in an effort to get more republicans out voting ,,they're using the possibility of trump being impeached IF ONLY

 

[Redfish]

'Illegal' crossing attempts at US Southwest border triple in March from year ago

And that is an NBC article

OH?? now you believe NBC It isn't false news anymore ???? lol

The numbers are the numbers ya fool. While I mock bsnbc and CNN I have never outright said they should be discounted. A wise person takes info from a range of places before drawing their own conclusions.

Now back to your STUPID position. The jump in illegal crossing was stark & huge by comparison. The president is supposed to defend our borders and enforce the law.

So what is the problem exactly?

No problem at all
Expect illegal immigration across the Mexican border to double next ...
thehill.com/.../immigration/357381-expect-illegal-immigration-across-the-mexican-bo...
Oct 27, 2017 - In a typical year, border crossings peak in the spring to early summer, as migrants crossfor outdoors work in construction and agriculture. Crossings in the second half ... In other words, much of the decline in 2017 can be explained by crossers advancing their border attempts into 2016. Even so, Trump can ...

You are such a partisan douchbag.

You just agreed with and thanked Old ladys post which said we do in fact have a problem.

Then in the very next post to me you say we don't.

We can not simply absorbed those kinds of numbers of illegals. We are already operating in deficits and struggle to care for our own poor class without adding tens of thousands of them to our already struggling safety nets.

There is a problem Only the blind can't see it It's how the moron wants to deal with it that's the problem

what do you find wrong with enforcing our existing immigration laws?

 

[Mac1958]

If we are serious about getting illegal immigration under control, we can't make it more difficult for ICE to do its job.

Precisely. And the illegals and future illegals know this.
.

 

[edward37]

OH?? now you believe NBC It isn't false news anymore ???? lol

The numbers are the numbers ya fool. While I mock bsnbc and CNN I have never outright said they should be discounted. A wise person takes info from a range of places before drawing their own conclusions.

Now back to your STUPID position. The jump in illegal crossing was stark & huge by comparison. The president is supposed to defend our borders and enforce the law.

So what is the problem exactly?

No problem at all
Expect illegal immigration across the Mexican border to double next ...
thehill.com/.../immigration/357381-expect-illegal-immigration-across-the-mexican-bo...
Oct 27, 2017 - In a typical year, border crossings peak in the spring to early summer, as migrants crossfor outdoors work in construction and agriculture. Crossings in the second half ... In other words, much of the decline in 2017 can be explained by crossers advancing their border attempts into 2016. Even so, Trump can ...

You are such a partisan douchbag.

You just agreed with and thanked Old ladys post which said we do in fact have a problem.

Then in the very next post to me you say we don't.

We can not simply absorbed those kinds of numbers of illegals. We are already operating in deficits and struggle to care for our own poor class without adding tens of thousands of them to our already struggling safety nets.

There is a problem Only the blind can't see it It's how the moron wants to deal with it that's the problem

what do you find wrong with enforcing our existing immigration laws?

is a wall part of that law?

 

[Redfish]

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

the left is doing this solely because they see them as a potential dem voting block. Dems and libs don't give a shit about illegals personally, they only pander to them because they think if they are legalized they will vote dem. That is all this is, and was ever, about.

Yes. So now it's up to the GOP to do something about it, or just give up.
.

regarding illegals the answer is simple, enforce our existing immigration laws, no amnesty for anyone here illegally. The DACA kids might be an exception, but they should not be put on the voter rolls for 5-10 years under any circumstances.

 

[Redfish]

The numbers are the numbers ya fool. While I mock bsnbc and CNN I have never outright said they should be discounted. A wise person takes info from a range of places before drawing their own conclusions.

Now back to your STUPID position. The jump in illegal crossing was stark & huge by comparison. The president is supposed to defend our borders and enforce the law.

So what is the problem exactly?

No problem at all
Expect illegal immigration across the Mexican border to double next ...
thehill.com/.../immigration/357381-expect-illegal-immigration-across-the-mexican-bo...
Oct 27, 2017 - In a typical year, border crossings peak in the spring to early summer, as migrants crossfor outdoors work in construction and agriculture. Crossings in the second half ... In other words, much of the decline in 2017 can be explained by crossers advancing their border attempts into 2016. Even so, Trump can ...

You are such a partisan douchbag.

You just agreed with and thanked Old ladys post which said we do in fact have a problem.

Then in the very next post to me you say we don't.

We can not simply absorbed those kinds of numbers of illegals. We are already operating in deficits and struggle to care for our own poor class without adding tens of thousands of them to our already struggling safety nets.

There is a problem Only the blind can't see it It's how the moron wants to deal with it that's the problem

what do you find wrong with enforcing our existing immigration laws?

is a wall part of that law?

secure borders are, and one way to secure them is a wall in some places. what is your objection to a border wall? what is your plan to secure the borders?

 

[Mac1958]

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

the left is doing this solely because they see them as a potential dem voting block. Dems and libs don't give a shit about illegals personally, they only pander to them because they think if they are legalized they will vote dem. That is all this is, and was ever, about.

Yes. So now it's up to the GOP to do something about it, or just give up.
.

regarding illegals the answer is simple, enforce our existing immigration laws, no amnesty for anyone here illegally. The DACA kids might be an exception, but they should not be put on the voter rolls for 5-10 years under any circumstances.

Well, that's certainly what minorities are expecting the GOP to want.
.

 

[edward37]

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

the left is doing this solely because they see them as a potential dem voting block. Dems and libs don't give a shit about illegals personally, they only pander to them because they think if they are legalized they will vote dem. That is all this is, and was ever, about.

Yes. So now it's up to the GOP to do something about it, or just give up.
.

regarding illegals the answer is simple, enforce our existing immigration laws, no amnesty for anyone here illegally. The DACA kids might be an exception, but they should not be put on the voter rolls for 5-10 years under any circumstances.

Think I can buy that

 

[Redfish]

I agree. Each immigrant is guilty of exactly one misdemeanor count of being here without permission while some employers are guilty of hundreds or thousands of counts of hiring undocumented workers going back many years.

Who's the real criminals?

Frankly, I think it's anyone who enables either activity.

But it seems like one thing both parties should be able to agree upon is illegal activity by American employers.
.

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

I know that is the official posture. That is why I said "they are not technically doing anything illegal but they are coming damned close."
That would be like our prison not notifying another LE jurisdiction when an inmate with another sentence to serve in county is released. So the inmate would walk and it would be up to the other county to catch him if they can. How sensible is that? How many unnecessary man hours would be wasted on that maneuver? If we are serious about getting illegal immigration under control, we can't make it more difficult for ICE to do its job.

sanctuary cities are violating federal law. spin it however you like, that is the bottom line.

 

[Redfish]

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

the left is doing this solely because they see them as a potential dem voting block. Dems and libs don't give a shit about illegals personally, they only pander to them because they think if they are legalized they will vote dem. That is all this is, and was ever, about.

Yes. So now it's up to the GOP to do something about it, or just give up.
.

regarding illegals the answer is simple, enforce our existing immigration laws, no amnesty for anyone here illegally. The DACA kids might be an exception, but they should not be put on the voter rolls for 5-10 years under any circumstances.

Well, that's certainly what minorities are expecting the GOP to want.
.

its what every American should want---------America for American citizens and legal immigrants. What do you find offensive about that?

 

[Redfish]

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

the left is doing this solely because they see them as a potential dem voting block. Dems and libs don't give a shit about illegals personally, they only pander to them because they think if they are legalized they will vote dem. That is all this is, and was ever, about.

Yes. So now it's up to the GOP to do something about it, or just give up.
.

regarding illegals the answer is simple, enforce our existing immigration laws, no amnesty for anyone here illegally. The DACA kids might be an exception, but they should not be put on the voter rolls for 5-10 years under any circumstances.

Think I can buy that

good

 

[Mac1958]

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

the left is doing this solely because they see them as a potential dem voting block. Dems and libs don't give a shit about illegals personally, they only pander to them because they think if they are legalized they will vote dem. That is all this is, and was ever, about.

Yes. So now it's up to the GOP to do something about it, or just give up.
.

regarding illegals the answer is simple, enforce our existing immigration laws, no amnesty for anyone here illegally. The DACA kids might be an exception, but they should not be put on the voter rolls for 5-10 years under any circumstances.

Well, that's certainly what minorities are expecting the GOP to want.
.

its what every American should want---------America for American citizens and legal immigrants. What do you find offensive about that?

I'm not even sure what "offensive" means, nor am I making a value judgement. I'm just saying that your approach is what minorities would expect from the GOP, and it's one of the primary reasons they don't care for the party.
.

 

[Redfish]

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

the left is doing this solely because they see them as a potential dem voting block. Dems and libs don't give a shit about illegals personally, they only pander to them because they think if they are legalized they will vote dem. That is all this is, and was ever, about.

Yes. So now it's up to the GOP to do something about it, or just give up.
.

regarding illegals the answer is simple, enforce our existing immigration laws, no amnesty for anyone here illegally. The DACA kids might be an exception, but they should not be put on the voter rolls for 5-10 years under any circumstances.

Well, that's certainly what minorities are expecting the GOP to want.
.

in the south west and south florida, Hispanics are not minorities

 

[edward37]

No problem at all
Expect illegal immigration across the Mexican border to double next ...
thehill.com/.../immigration/357381-expect-illegal-immigration-across-the-mexican-bo...
Oct 27, 2017 - In a typical year, border crossings peak in the spring to early summer, as migrants crossfor outdoors work in construction and agriculture. Crossings in the second half ... In other words, much of the decline in 2017 can be explained by crossers advancing their border attempts into 2016. Even so, Trump can ...

You are such a partisan douchbag.

You just agreed with and thanked Old ladys post which said we do in fact have a problem.

Then in the very next post to me you say we don't.

We can not simply absorbed those kinds of numbers of illegals. We are already operating in deficits and struggle to care for our own poor class without adding tens of thousands of them to our already struggling safety nets.

There is a problem Only the blind can't see it It's how the moron wants to deal with it that's the problem

what do you find wrong with enforcing our existing immigration laws?

is a wall part of that law?

secure borders are, and one way to secure them is a wall in some places. what is your objection to a border wall? what is your plan to secure the borders?

I have no plan I leave that up to those supposedly in the know That wall imo is just bs ,,,a promise to his base

 

[Redfish]

the left is doing this solely because they see them as a potential dem voting block. Dems and libs don't give a shit about illegals personally, they only pander to them because they think if they are legalized they will vote dem. That is all this is, and was ever, about.

Yes. So now it's up to the GOP to do something about it, or just give up.
.

regarding illegals the answer is simple, enforce our existing immigration laws, no amnesty for anyone here illegally. The DACA kids might be an exception, but they should not be put on the voter rolls for 5-10 years under any circumstances.

Well, that's certainly what minorities are expecting the GOP to want.
.

its what every American should want---------America for American citizens and legal immigrants. What do you find offensive about that?

I'm not even sure what "offensive" means, nor am I making a value judgement. I'm just saying that your approach is what minorities would expect from the GOP, and it's one of the primary reasons they don't care for the party.
.

so in your judgement, minorities object to the USA enforcing its immigration laws? which minorities? blacks, Asians, Hispanics, jews, arabs, muslims, which ones?

 

[Redfish]

You are such a partisan douchbag.

You just agreed with and thanked Old ladys post which said we do in fact have a problem.

Then in the very next post to me you say we don't.

We can not simply absorbed those kinds of numbers of illegals. We are already operating in deficits and struggle to care for our own poor class without adding tens of thousands of them to our already struggling safety nets.

There is a problem Only the blind can't see it It's how the moron wants to deal with it that's the problem

what do you find wrong with enforcing our existing immigration laws?

is a wall part of that law?

secure borders are, and one way to secure them is a wall in some places. what is your objection to a border wall? what is your plan to secure the borders?

I have no plan I leave that up to those supposedly in the know That wall imo is just bs ,,,a promise to his base

so no plan, just bitch about the president, I understand your purpose here.

 

[Mac1958]

Yes. So now it's up to the GOP to do something about it, or just give up.
.

regarding illegals the answer is simple, enforce our existing immigration laws, no amnesty for anyone here illegally. The DACA kids might be an exception, but they should not be put on the voter rolls for 5-10 years under any circumstances.

Well, that's certainly what minorities are expecting the GOP to want.
.

its what every American should want---------America for American citizens and legal immigrants. What do you find offensive about that?

I'm not even sure what "offensive" means, nor am I making a value judgement. I'm just saying that your approach is what minorities would expect from the GOP, and it's one of the primary reasons they don't care for the party.
.

so in your judgement, minorities object to the USA enforcing its immigration laws? which minorities? blacks, Asians, Hispanics, jews, arabs, muslims, which ones?

As I've said many times now, minorities (Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, for our purposes here) don't trust you because they feel you don't like them and don't want them here.

That's a higher priority than jobs or the economy or the stock market. It's personal. It cuts to who they are.

That's not my fault. I'm just pointing out a fact. You can disagree, or not believe, or not care. You can do something or you can ignore it. Whatever you'd like.

From what I've seen on this thread, I'm going to assume that the GOP is just going to ignore it. Okay. We'll see.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

It's irrelevant without understanding the rationale behind that deal.

the rationale????????? are you an idiot? to sell german motorcycles in Germany and keep Harley Davidson out of the German market.

Yes, rationale.

Why is that happening?

What precipitated that move?

Was Trump responsible?

that happened while your Kenyan messiah was president. Harley Davidson was trying successfully to sell in Europe, tariffs were put on them to stop those sales by making Harleys too expensive compared to European bikes.

No, dope.

I asked what the rationale for the tariffs were. Not bbbut....Obama.

how many times before it sinks in? Germany put tariffs on Harleys in order to make them prohibitively expensive for Germans to buy, so that German bikers would be forced to spend their money on German bikes.

Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I knew you had no clue.

You can thank Trump.
EU weighs tariffs on bourbon, blue jeans, Harley-Davidson

 

[edward37]

There is a problem Only the blind can't see it It's how the moron wants to deal with it that's the problem

what do you find wrong with enforcing our existing immigration laws?

is a wall part of that law?

secure borders are, and one way to secure them is a wall in some places. what is your objection to a border wall? what is your plan to secure the borders?

I have no plan I leave that up to those supposedly in the know That wall imo is just bs ,,,a promise to his base

so no plan, just bitch about the president, I understand your purpose here.

I don't profess to be an expert on the subject But I do have an understanding of what's right and wrong

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I agree that the employer problem has not been addressed by either party but I don't agree that anyone "enables" illegal immigration.

Not sure I can agree with that; the mayors of sanctuary cities have their reasons, and they are not technically doing anything illegal (except maybe the mayor of Oakland), but they are coming damned close to "enabling" illegals to skirt being sent home. I'm not sure that is a good "look" for any party. Without all the hyperbole and smear campaign being used by the President, we need people to cut it out and enter legally or not come here.
On the other hand, if we really need them so badly, why don't we just revisit immigration #'s and allow more guest visas so they can be paying taxes and NOT be a drain on the economy?

A sanctuary city is nothing more than a city that refuses to use it's own resources to enforce federal immigration laws.

They aren't "enabling" any illegal immigration by doing so.

Sure they are. Illegals are going to look for any signs, and they don't come more clear than that.

Illegals - and they exist in my own extended family - know that one side of our political spectrum will defend them at every opportunity.
.

Great. That's not "enabling" illegal immigration. There aren't bands of liberals secretly guiding hordes of "illegals" through the desert.

Why was Obama referred to as the "deporter in chief"?

Illegals have one political party they trust more than the other. Which one do you suppose that is?
.

Great. That is not "enabling" illegal immigration.