• We're going to build the wall.
• Mandatory E-verify
• Denies sanctuary cities of federal grants
• 3-year renewable work permits for DACA, no path to citizenship
• Reduces overall immigration by 25%
• Increases immigration levels of skilled labor by 45%
• Ends visa lottery
• Ends chain migration
• Kate's Law - Toughens sentences for criminals who have been deported and illegally return
• Allows for detention of minors apprehended at the border with their parents
  

https://judiciary.house.gov/wp-content/u...re-Act.pdf

Sign it!

In before libs start whining.

(01-11-2018 12:26 AM)gdunn Wrote:  In before libs start whining.

I wonder what they could possibly whine about. This is a bill of love, and a bill for AMERICANS -- black, white, brown, straight, gay, male, female, gender non-binary.

If you're against this, you're just against America. Plain and simple.

(01-11-2018 12:31 AM)Kronke Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:26 AM)gdunn Wrote:  In before libs start whining.

I wonder what they could possibly whine about. This is a bill of love, and a bill for AMERICANS -- black, white, brown, straight, gay, male, female, gender non-binary.

If you're against this, you're just against America. Plain and simple.

Trust me. There'll be a problem. My granny used to say some people keep drawing breathe just so they can find a reason to b*itch.

If they are reducing "legal" immigration by 25% it is a seriously flawed bill. We need more legal immigration as long as we set the criteria instead of the chain process we have now. Its uncontrolled illegal immigration that needs to be reduced.

The Dems will never sign it--but it gives Trump a ton of negotiating room. Honestly---get the wall, end chain migration, and end the lottery and I'm good. Im ok if there is path to citizenship---but I think I'd make it require some sort of public service be it the military, Peace Corps, or some other form of national service, English proficiency (which should not be an issue if they have never known another home), and includes all the normal steps required by any individual entering the country by legal means (classes, paperwork, etc).

I should've read this thread before I responded in the other one.....I had to get my hockey fix on and take another 4 hr nap....

not so shockingly, it's XACLY! what I was looking for in return.....

#HELLYEAHBIATCHES!!!

thanks Kronke for doing the due!

hey Mach....you may get your wish too...

Sec. 1117. National Guard support to secure the southern border.

it took 50 years and DJT to put the squeeze on........lmfao....

I can't wait to see how the senate ***** this one up......you already know it's coming....

(01-11-2018 12:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  If they are reducing "legal" immigration by 25% it is a seriously flawed bill. We need more legal immigration as long as we set the criteria instead of the chain process we have now. Its uncontrolled illegal immigration that needs to be reduced.

your latter point is why the bill....

to the former, how does reducing immigration by that amount impact anything in relevant terms???

why not develop the need from within and adjust as req'd at some point in the future???

almost 1 out of 6 in numbers (since '65...click here for my take in meeting of the minds thread...incl legal or illegals) are immigrants....

how many eligible today are unemployed or unemployable????

A: a shiteload due to decades of bullshite policy from both sides.....

the reduction is a must.....and scrutinizing those looking to enter is a bigger "must"

we already have the bodies that can dig but don't.....

and Rand Paul just came with confidence on it passing through the senate....

as my daughter used to say, "bobby darn"

looks like today should be another fun one....

(01-11-2018 09:14 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  and Rand Paul just came with confidence on it passing through the senate....

as my daughter used to say, "bobby darn"

looks like today should be another fun one....

That seems optimistic to me. They can only lose 1 vote and I don't see bipartisanship likely

(01-11-2018 12:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  If they are reducing "legal" immigration by 25% it is a seriously flawed bill. We need more legal immigration as long as we set the criteria instead of the chain process we have now. Its uncontrolled illegal immigration that needs to be reduced.

But they are reducing non-effective immigration (chain migration and lottery) completely, so that the immigration you get is many fold better at a 25% reduction than it ever was at the previous rate.

BOOM SIGN IT!

(01-11-2018 09:19 AM)solohawks Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 09:14 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  and Rand Paul just came with confidence on it passing through the senate....

as my daughter used to say, "bobby darn"

looks like today should be another fun one....

That seems optimistic to me. They can only lose 1 vote and I don't see bipartisanship likely

I don't disagree.....like I said, today is going to be a fun one.....

the cool thing is Rand is starting to figure out the schema and let go of his narcissistic bs.....

that in itself is a positive.....

even he has figured out this never trumpf, blah blah blah is counterproductive relative to progress......

Someone want to clarify for me what is meant by “detaining minors apprehended with the parents” for me? I’m hoping there’s a much more well thought out and humane plan to that than just tossing kids in the exact same cells with anyone else detained.

Why would anyone be against e-verify unless they fraudulently submit I-9s? It helps take the risk of mistake or being dupped off of the employers’ shoulders.

(01-11-2018 09:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  If they are reducing "legal" immigration by 25% it is a seriously flawed bill. We need more legal immigration as long as we set the criteria instead of the chain process we have now. Its uncontrolled illegal immigration that needs to be reduced.

But they are reducing non-effective immigration (chain migration and lottery) completely, so that the immigration you get is many fold better at a 25% reduction than it ever was at the previous rate.

And all these years we were led to believe that Republicans weren't against immigration...........just illegal immigration.

Oh how the truth is coming out on so many issues.

(01-11-2018 01:58 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 09:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  If they are reducing "legal" immigration by 25% it is a seriously flawed bill. We need more legal immigration as long as we set the criteria instead of the chain process we have now. Its uncontrolled illegal immigration that needs to be reduced.

But they are reducing non-effective immigration (chain migration and lottery) completely, so that the immigration you get is many fold better at a 25% reduction than it ever was at the previous rate.

And all these years we were led to believe that Republicans weren't against immigration...........just illegal immigration.

Oh how the truth is coming out on so many issues.

Chain migration and the lottery system is how some of the shooters and terrorists in this country got it. It doesnt surprise me in the least that you are butthurt over those piss-poor qualifiers for immigration are being shut down.

(01-11-2018 01:58 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 09:23 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(01-11-2018 12:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  If they are reducing "legal" immigration by 25% it is a seriously flawed bill. We need more legal immigration as long as we set the criteria instead of the chain process we have now. Its uncontrolled illegal immigration that needs to be reduced.

But they are reducing non-effective immigration (chain migration and lottery) completely, so that the immigration you get is many fold better at a 25% reduction than it ever was at the previous rate.

And all these years we were led to believe that Republicans weren't against immigration...........just illegal immigration.

Oh how the truth is coming out on so many issues.

We are not against immigration. We are simply for merit based immigration. Immigration just to increase the total number of immigrants with no consideration given to security or adverse economic affects is kinda foolish. My guess is the VAST majority of Americans would completely agree with that stance....most every other country certainly does (including Mexico).