(11-29-2018 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the end, yes. But there were so many things I would have done differently along the way to the use, that it likely wouldn't have been necessary because the situation would not have arose.

Huh? They'd still either be stacking up at the border waiting to get into your processing centers, or they'd be stewing inside the fences of the processing centers. You've proposed nothing that would change that fact.

(11-29-2018 11:17 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 11:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 10:49 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 10:36 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So zero borders then, all dependent on if 'you work hard'. Not just 'zero borders', in that case but 'citizenship for all.' I can see why you get so adamant over any semblance of a discussion that veers anywhere near the subject of the border, immigrants, or border control.

I can also see why if this is your position why you typically refuse to delineate between supposed "anti-immigrant" policy and "anti 'illegal' immigrant policy".

You again...

Explain how advocating for focusing deportations on criminals/unproductive members of society and increasing visas/work permits is "zero borders?" Not only do I very clearly state that I support deportation (one type of border control method) but I also clearly state that I support immigrant documentation (another border control method).

I'll give you this, your ability to try and make me defend a position I'm not at all advocating for is very impressive! You've turned my position of increasing immigration, primarily through temporary worker status, into a position where anyone can cross our borders at any time and it's not illegal. Good job!

You are still evading a very specific point: if crossing the border is illegal and you would keep it that way, should border patrol stop people trying to cross?

Not avoiding that at all. I've specifically said that if a situation arose where a mob of people became violent and needed to be dispersed, then tear gas is an appropriate response.

And to be frank, you haven't asked, until now, how I would stop people from trying to cross. If you could point out where you did before, I'd appreciate that.

Border patrol should continue to stop people trying to cross ILLEGALLY. My preference would be to, frankly, continue what we do now. Use a combination of border agents and UAVs to monitor the border and apprehend people who are not using lawful means to enter the border. That would then result in their deportation. But, from my perspective, if you provide sufficient legal means of entry, then you would decrease the amount of illegal immigration, and you'd primarily only have those trying to commit crimes be those crossing illegally.

If you make it easier to enter legally by promising more and faster asylum claims processing, and if you offer a path to citizenship for those who enter illegally, then it stands to reason you'll increase the numbers heading for the border, and incentivize them to cross illegally. Your last sentence is completely at odds with observed facts, since most trying to cross are not trying to commit crimes and do so in hopes of living in the United States, and your proposal wouldn't reduce those numbers and may very well increase them.

Unless, that is, you are proposing giving work visas to all that request them along with their immediate family, which for all practical purposes is open borders.

And since you agree that tear gas should be used on those that are mobbing the fences, then why did you decry that earlier?

Why would there be an incentive to cross illegally if there are more legal means of entry?

I've provided information before about immigration studies that found that the net immigration numbers increased once it became more and more difficult for people to cross the border. That making it fairly easy for temporary or seasonal workers to cross the border created circular migration where the migrants still resided in their home country and did not put down roots in the US.

And I decried the use of tear gas earlier because the administration failed every step of the way to alleviate the situation that led to the use of tear gas. Is it that hard to understand?

(11-29-2018 11:25 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 11:19 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  In the end, yes. But there were so many things I would have done differently along the way to the use, that it likely wouldn't have been necessary because the situation would not have arose.

Huh? They'd still either be stacking up at the border waiting to get into your processing centers, or they'd be stewing inside the fences of the processing centers. You've proposed nothing that would change that fact.

So you're saying they just tear gassed people who were following the rules and "stewing" about?

(11-29-2018 11:21 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ]





From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder ]b]who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system[/b].

People who want to come here legally and be productive follow the rules. My cousin's husband is a Mexican national who came here legally, following the rules. Miguel has been been living here as a legal resident alien for 40 years now. I think if his introduction to the US had been swimming the river behind my office, things would have bee very different for him and my cousin.

People who have the tools to be productive and law abiding - education, skills, and the desire to do things right - are not in the caravans and not swimming the river.


Still dealing with the pollyanna-ish image of the noble immigrant, I guess. maybe this is where my "anecdotal" experience kicks in. Maybe if you had a little anecdotal experience, you would think differently. Have you even met an illegal? have you any experience with them that doesn't involve a rolled-up car window?

Want them in your neighborhood?

Quote:. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay,[

So the solution is to let them all in and check up in a couple of years to see which ones are working/paying income taxes and which ones aren't? Then deport the losers, who surely will submit meekly?

I guess we can call that plan open borders with probation.

Not very pragmatic.

Quote: offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.

Why is the path to citizenship such a big thing with you and other liberals? That's why I suspect creating Democratic voters is the impetus behind the let 'em in movement. You mentioned guest workers. I approved. One reason is that guest workers, as guests, do not have a path to citizenship.

I would require guest workers to check in with administrators of the guest worker program at least annually to prove employment. I would require 20% of their pay to be withheld for federal income taxes, most of which they could reclaim by filing a return. I would deport any convicted of a crime.

This requires the creation of an infrastucture, the reason we cannot just wave a wand and say Abracadabra, you are all now guest workers. Line up here for citizenship.

I prefer a pathway to citizenship because if you can prove you're here for 20 years, working, and paying taxes, you're the type of person we want in this country.

I agree with guest workers having a rather strict monitoring program and have no issues with your other comments. I just want to increase the number of worker visas that are available. There are more immigrants willing to come here and abide by those rules than spots available, and we currently make the process of obtaining those worker visas rather difficult (there are basically requirements in place that require the employer and the employee to identify each other, which is obviously a bit difficult for many manual labor jobs that currently rely on illegal immigrants.

And you're darn right that this requires infrastructure, which is what we could start putting in place, instead of sending 5,000 troops to the border for a publicity stunt.

I don't see why you keep railing against my positions and calling me someone who supports open borders, when we really don't disagree on probably the most central position to immigration reform. Why do you think we're so different in the positions we hold?

It requires a lot of infrastructure, and personnel. It's cheaper, simpler, and a more efficient use of resources to stop them at the border. Stopping them at the border also avoids the bad optics of detention camps (what you call "asylum processing centers").

Cheaper, simpler, and more efficient? Lol.

I'm guessing you support the war on drugs too, because that has been cheaper, simpler, and more efficient at combating drug abuse.

Anyways, gotta work. Been fun banging my head against a brick wall for the past hour!

(11-29-2018 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why would there be an incentive to cross illegally if there are more legal means of entry?

Your proposals include means for those who enter illegally to remain.

Quote:I've provided information before about immigration studies that found that the net immigration numbers increased once it became more and more difficult for people to cross the border.

It's important to get correlation and causation in the proper order. It became necessary to make crossing more difficult as the numbers of those crossing increased. If you put it the other way around, it's nonsensical.

Quote:That making it fairly easy for temporary or seasonal workers to cross the border created circular migration where the migrants still resided in their home country and did not put down roots in the US.

And that still happens, but most of the crossers are not intending to do so temporarily or seasonally. Also, are these studies empirical, or conjectural?

Quote:And I decried the use of tear gas earlier because the administration failed every step of the way to alleviate the situation that led to the use of tear gas. Is it that hard to understand?

So it's not tear gas, per se, it's the quantity that you have a problem with.

(11-29-2018 11:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 11:21 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 10:46 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 10:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  ]





From my perspective, if you increase the ability for people to come here legally and be productive members of society, you can focus resources on the remainder ]b]who still want to flout the rules and take advantage of the system[/b].

People who want to come here legally and be productive follow the rules. My cousin's husband is a Mexican national who came here legally, following the rules. Miguel has been been living here as a legal resident alien for 40 years now. I think if his introduction to the US had been swimming the river behind my office, things would have bee very different for him and my cousin.

People who have the tools to be productive and law abiding - education, skills, and the desire to do things right - are not in the caravans and not swimming the river.


Still dealing with the pollyanna-ish image of the noble immigrant, I guess. maybe this is where my "anecdotal" experience kicks in. Maybe if you had a little anecdotal experience, you would think differently. Have you even met an illegal? have you any experience with them that doesn't involve a rolled-up car window?

Want them in your neighborhood?

Quote:. I've got zero problems with the US government deporting illegal immigrants that are not productive members of society or are committing felonies. But if we're talking about a hard worker who is providing for a family and obeying the law, then let them stay,[

So the solution is to let them all in and check up in a couple of years to see which ones are working/paying income taxes and which ones aren't? Then deport the losers, who surely will submit meekly?

I guess we can call that plan open borders with probation.

Not very pragmatic.

Quote: offer them a realistic pathway to citizenship.

Why is the path to citizenship such a big thing with you and other liberals? That's why I suspect creating Democratic voters is the impetus behind the let 'em in movement. You mentioned guest workers. I approved. One reason is that guest workers, as guests, do not have a path to citizenship.

I would require guest workers to check in with administrators of the guest worker program at least annually to prove employment. I would require 20% of their pay to be withheld for federal income taxes, most of which they could reclaim by filing a return. I would deport any convicted of a crime.

This requires the creation of an infrastucture, the reason we cannot just wave a wand and say Abracadabra, you are all now guest workers. Line up here for citizenship.

I prefer a pathway to citizenship because if you can prove you're here for 20 years, working, and paying taxes, you're the type of person we want in this country.

I agree with guest workers having a rather strict monitoring program and have no issues with your other comments. I just want to increase the number of worker visas that are available. There are more immigrants willing to come here and abide by those rules than spots available, and we currently make the process of obtaining those worker visas rather difficult (there are basically requirements in place that require the employer and the employee to identify each other, which is obviously a bit difficult for many manual labor jobs that currently rely on illegal immigrants.

And you're darn right that this requires infrastructure, which is what we could start putting in place, instead of sending 5,000 troops to the border for a publicity stunt.

I don't see why you keep railing against my positions and calling me someone who supports open borders, when we really don't disagree on probably the most central position to immigration reform. Why do you think we're so different in the positions we hold?

It requires a lot of infrastructure, and personnel. It's cheaper, simpler, and a more efficient use of resources to stop them at the border. Stopping them at the border also avoids the bad optics of detention camps (what you call "asylum processing centers").

Cheaper, simpler, and more efficient? Lol.

I'm guessing you support the war on drugs too, because that has been cheaper, simpler, and more efficient at combating drug abuse.

Anyways, gotta work. Been fun banging my head against a brick wall for the past hour!

Post a non-sequitur response, then bolt.

(11-29-2018 11:35 AM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why would there be an incentive to cross illegally if there are more legal means of entry?

Your proposals include means for those who enter illegally to remain.

Quote:I've provided information before about immigration studies that found that the net immigration numbers increased once it became more and more difficult for people to cross the border.

It's important to get correlation and causation in the proper order. It became necessary to make crossing more difficult as the numbers of those crossing increased. If you put it the other way around, it's nonsensical.

Quote:That making it fairly easy for temporary or seasonal workers to cross the border created circular migration where the migrants still resided in their home country and did not put down roots in the US.

And that still happens, but most of the crossers are not intending to do so temporarily or seasonally. Also, are these studies empirical, or conjectural?

Quote:And I decried the use of tear gas earlier because the administration failed every step of the way to alleviate the situation that led to the use of tear gas. Is it that hard to understand?

So it's not tear gas, per se, it's the quantity that you have a problem with.

I haven't read both of these, but here are some studies about the topic. Some reference the change in policy in the US in the 60s/70s that was not borne out of an increase in border crossings, but a desire, after Vietnam specifically, to control our border.

https://www.sole-jole.org/Zimmermann.pdf

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2016/04/2...chers-find

(11-29-2018 11:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I prefer a pathway to citizenship because if you can prove you're here for 20 years, working, and paying taxes, you're the type of person we want in this country.

So, if I read you right, if somebody lives here 20 years (minimum?) and pays their taxes and their bills, you would give them amnesty?

OK with me, as long as we observe the minimum 20 year residency, 20 years of employment, and the 20 years of taxes.

Kind of like when a convict escapes from jail, and 20 years later they find him in Montana with a wife, three kids, working at the feed store, mayor, and a pillar of the community. Of course we always forget and forgive the transgressions from 20 years back, don't we?

But I don't see what this has to do with the caravan. Are you suggesting we let them all in and check up on them in 20 years?

What would you do?

(11-29-2018 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why would there be an incentive to cross illegally if there are more legal means of entry?
I've provided information before about immigration studies that found that the net immigration numbers increased once it became more and more difficult for people to cross the border. That making it fairly easy for temporary or seasonal workers to cross the border created circular migration where the migrants still resided in their home country and did not put down roots in the US.

I would say that the only ways I can see to solve the problem are:
1) Streamline and increase numbers for the legal immigration process; it is the height of absurdity for Microsoft to have to build a campus just across the border in BC, because they can't get green cards for foreign born top graduates who attended places like MIT on student visas;
2) Allow guest worker status ("red card") with no path to citizenship, including those here illegally now; we can't send them back, but we also should not allow them to profit from bad behavior;
3) Anyone who completes a tour in the military and is honorably discharged earns citizenship; and
4) Quit pouring billions down ratholes in the Middle East, and use those funds to revitalize (or, more correctly, vitalize) Latin American economies; two things that I think could help this process are legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing some other drugs to break the economic power of gangs, and adopting sugar cane ethanol in a major way, like Brazil, to create another cash crop for much of Latin America.

It's time for us to realize that the Middle East is not an essential part of our sphere of influence--it is much more important to China, India, and Japan, among others, because they need the oil more than we do--but Latin America is. It's time for another JFK Good Neighbor policy--not the least because Unitas cruises were damn fun for the Navy. Rio is a far better liberty port than Riyadh (which, yes, I know, isn't a port, but the alliteration works and the point is valid).

Quote:And I decried the use of tear gas earlier because the administration failed every step of the way to alleviate the situation that led to the use of tear gas. Is it that hard to understand?

And what steps would have alleviated the problem that this administration did not take?

(11-30-2018 12:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Rio is a far better liberty port than Riyadh (which, yes, I know, isn't a port, but the alliteration works and the point is valid).

Who would have ever thought that? I know which side of the thong topless bikini vs. burkha debate I would come down with pretty much *each and every* time....

(11-30-2018 12:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why would there be an incentive to cross illegally if there are more legal means of entry?
I've provided information before about immigration studies that found that the net immigration numbers increased once it became more and more difficult for people to cross the border. That making it fairly easy for temporary or seasonal workers to cross the border created circular migration where the migrants still resided in their home country and did not put down roots in the US.

I would say that the only ways I can see to solve the problem are:
1) Streamline and increase numbers for the legal immigration process; it is the height of absurdity for Microsoft to have to build a campus just across the border in BC, because they can't get green cards for foreign born top graduates who attended places like MIT on student visas;
2) Allow guest worker status ("red card") with no path to citizenship, including those here illegally now; we can't send them back, but we also should not allow them to profit from bad behavior;
3) Anyone who completes a tour in the military and is honorably discharged earns citizenship; and
4) Quit pouring billions down ratholes in the Middle East, and use those funds to revitalize (or, more correctly, vitalize) Latin American economies; two things that I think could help this process are legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing some other drugs to break the economic power of gangs, and adopting sugar cane ethanol in a major way, like Brazil, to create another cash crop for much of Latin America.

It's time for us to realize that the Middle East is not an essential part of our sphere of influence--it is much more important to China, India, and Japan, among others, because they need the oil more than we do--but Latin America is. It's time for another JFK Good Neighbor policy--not the least because Unitas cruises were damn fun for the Navy. Rio is a far better liberty port than Riyadh (which, yes, I know, isn't a port, but the alliteration works and the point is valid).

Quote:And I decried the use of tear gas earlier because the administration failed every step of the way to alleviate the situation that led to the use of tear gas. Is it that hard to understand?

And what steps would have alleviated the problem that this administration did not take?

Those three steps you outlined above would have gone a long way to help. I've also already mentioned a few things, like not intentionally slowing down the asylum request processing rate.

I am in complete agreement with all three of your proposals. I don't personally think a path to citizenship is a requirement for the temporary worker visas, but I think it would be good if there was a pathway for people who can document that they've been a good citizen for X number of years.

(11-30-2018 01:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 12:44 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-29-2018 11:26 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Why would there be an incentive to cross illegally if there are more legal means of entry?
I've provided information before about immigration studies that found that the net immigration numbers increased once it became more and more difficult for people to cross the border. That making it fairly easy for temporary or seasonal workers to cross the border created circular migration where the migrants still resided in their home country and did not put down roots in the US.

I would say that the only ways I can see to solve the problem are:
1) Streamline and increase numbers for the legal immigration process; it is the height of absurdity for Microsoft to have to build a campus just across the border in BC, because they can't get green cards for foreign born top graduates who attended places like MIT on student visas;
2) Allow guest worker status ("red card") with no path to citizenship, including those here illegally now; we can't send them back, but we also should not allow them to profit from bad behavior;
3) Anyone who completes a tour in the military and is honorably discharged earns citizenship; and
4) Quit pouring billions down ratholes in the Middle East, and use those funds to revitalize (or, more correctly, vitalize) Latin American economies; two things that I think could help this process are legalizing marijuana and decriminalizing some other drugs to break the economic power of gangs, and adopting sugar cane ethanol in a major way, like Brazil, to create another cash crop for much of Latin America.

It's time for us to realize that the Middle East is not an essential part of our sphere of influence--it is much more important to China, India, and Japan, among others, because they need the oil more than we do--but Latin America is. It's time for another JFK Good Neighbor policy--not the least because Unitas cruises were damn fun for the Navy. Rio is a far better liberty port than Riyadh (which, yes, I know, isn't a port, but the alliteration works and the point is valid).

Quote:And I decried the use of tear gas earlier because the administration failed every step of the way to alleviate the situation that led to the use of tear gas. Is it that hard to understand?

And what steps would have alleviated the problem that this administration did not take?

Those three steps you outlined above would have gone a long way to help. I've also already mentioned a few things, like not intentionally slowing down the asylum request processing rate.

I am in complete agreement with all three of your proposals. I don't personally think a path to citizenship is a requirement for the temporary worker visas, but I think it would be good if there was a pathway for people who can document that they've been a good citizen for X number of years.

A temporary visa is, well, temporary. At the end of the term, whether it is 1, 3, 5 years, the temp can apply for permanent resident alien status, like anybody else, and I am sure a good record as a temp can only be a plus. Show employment and tax records, pass a background check similar to the one to buy a gun. I presume if granted a long term residency permit, he could enroll in the program to become a naturalized citizen, which also includes taking and passing a civics test that probably half of our natural born voters could not pass.

So yes, there would be a path, one that would require being law abiding at every step, and that did not reward line jumping and illegal acts.

\Same path we have now, more or less.

(11-30-2018 01:44 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Those three steps you outlined above would have gone a long way to help. I've also already mentioned a few things, like not intentionally slowing down the asylum request processing rate.
I am in complete agreement with all three of your proposals. I don't personally think a path to citizenship is a requirement for the temporary worker visas, but I think it would be good if there was a pathway for people who can document that they've been a good citizen for X number of years.

Which of those steps could this administration (or any administration) have implemented unilaterally (specifically, without congress going along)?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Trump put on the table a proposal that was not substantially different from that, and neither republicans nor democrats in congress did one thing with it?

I think X has to be a very big number in order to excuse illegal actions. I would say at least 20. But I'd rather just go with permanent guest worker for those who want to live here, and temporary guest worker for those who want to return to their country of origin. Reagan's Bracero program actually worked decently well, although it has been made fun of by many on the left.

I know many of the illegals don't give a damn about being citizens. Their priorities are #1, making some money, and #2, not getting sent back. A guest worker program satisfies those two needs.

In addition, it frees employers to use these people without legal worries of their own.

But it will not get you bunches of votes in elections, if you cannot call the other side racists. Maybe that is why the democrats don't do it.

(11-30-2018 02:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I know many of the illegals don't give a damn about being citizens. Their priorities are #1, making some money, and #2, not getting sent back. A guest worker program satisfies those two needs.

In addition, it frees employers to use these people without legal worries of their own.

But it will not get you bunches of votes in elections, if you cannot call the other side racists. Maybe that is why the democrats don't do it.

Why don’t the Republicans do it?

(11-30-2018 02:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 02:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I know many of the illegals don't give a damn about being citizens. Their priorities are #1, making some money, and #2, not getting sent back. A guest worker program satisfies those two needs.
In addition, it frees employers to use these people without legal worries of their own.
But it will not get you bunches of votes in elections, if you cannot call the other side racists. Maybe that is why the democrats don't do it.

Why don’t the Republicans do it?

Number one, they can't do it by themselves, and haven't been able to do it by themselves for generations. That takes a majority in both houses, including a filibuster-proof majority in the senate, plus the white house. If every republican voted to make it happen today, it wouldn't happen.

And I think that democrats would rather have the problem to leverage for political purposes than to solve it. Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor' keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you'll keep 'em voting democrat. And republicans are too dumb to counter that.

It's still a good question. What I don't understand is why republicans don't stand up for some things. Take my approach--or any reasonable approach--bring it to the floor and have a vote. And tell every republican you better vote yes or else you'll get primaried next time. I have little doubt that Pelosi will do that on a bunch of stuff in the next two years. Republicans don't have that kind of leadership.

Here are things I would have done if I were running the republicans in congress:

January 2011--as soon as retaking the house, pass either Bowles-Simpson or Domenici-Rivlin, or the best of both (they were not that far apart, except D-R added a consumption tax, which I support), plus Bismarck health care as a replacement for Obamacare, and send them to the senate to give Reid and Obama two hot potatoes to juggle.

January 2015--as soon as taking over the senate, pass a meaningful immigration reform including a guest worker program; increased legal immigration based on a points system, like Canada; end to catch and release; funding to fix e-verify and a safe harbor where if you have queried e-verify you can bring someone on until you get the results back, soloing as you terminate them within 24 hours if you get an adverse report back; automatic citizenship for any foreign national who completes a full term in the military with an honorable discharge; and establishing programs to revitalize Latin America.

Force democrats either to vote for sensible ideas or go on the record opposing them.

(11-30-2018 02:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 02:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I know many of the illegals don't give a damn about being citizens. Their priorities are #1, making some money, and #2, not getting sent back. A guest worker program satisfies those two needs.

In addition, it frees employers to use these people without legal worries of their own.

But it will not get you bunches of votes in elections, if you cannot call the other side racists. Maybe that is why the democrats don't do it.

Why don’t the Republicans do it?

over the obstructionist
Dems?

The Dems can paint the Republicans as mean(tear gassing kids) and lacking compassion (they just want a better life for their family) and as racist for enforcing the law.

What is the upside for the Democratic Party to solve this problem? When they had both houses of Congress and the WH in 2009-10, why didn't they address it? No political plus, that's why.

(11-30-2018 04:14 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 02:56 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-30-2018 02:49 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I know many of the illegals don't give a damn about being citizens. Their priorities are #1, making some money, and #2, not getting sent back. A guest worker program satisfies those two needs.

In addition, it frees employers to use these people without legal worries of their own.

But it will not get you bunches of votes in elections, if you cannot call the other side racists. Maybe that is why the democrats don't do it.

Why don’t the Republicans do it?

over the obstructionist
Dems?

The Dems can paint the Republicans as mean(tear gassing kids) and lacking compassion (they just want a better life for their family) and as racist for enforcing the law.

What is the upside for the Democratic Party to solve this problem? When they had both houses of Congress and the WH in 2009-10, why didn't they address it? No political plus, that's why.

So the Republicans not publicly supporting these types of immigration reform is the Dems fault? Right.

Your original comment is obtuse, to say the least. This is a bipartisan problem, to say the least.