the four “pillars” his administration has insisted be included in an immigration deal: a path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers
Before “negotiating” again, Democrats should listen closely to what various House Republicans are saying about the above.
The most toxic provision, Espaillat and other members of both parties said, was the piece limiting family immigration sponsorship to only spouses and minor children.
“If this law had been active in 1964 when I came to the United States, I wouldn’t be here in the U.S. Congress right now, because my family petitioned for me,” he said.
And that is EXACTLY the outcome that’s intended by the white nationalist anti-immigration movement – preventing people like Rep Espaillat from ever coming here in the first place, from becoming citizens and voters and elected officials.
If you look back at the history, you find that when they had this discussion in the 60s the proposal was to have immigration based on merit. That was rejected by Republicans, who were worried about having an influx of non-white immigrants, so they moved to the system we have now, based in family connections plus work visas. Ironically, they got what they were afraid of, since the people in Western European nations have a better life than here and tend to come here for jobs install numbers, while people in the worse off nations of the world (which are largely non-white) come here for the opportunities of America and come here in much larger numbers. Each will bring family members, and the non-white families are again larger. So, Republicans had a chance and designed a system based on their belief that they would get a bunch of white people to come here instead of the diverse population that did. And of course now they are arguing to get the system they could have had 50 years ago, in the hope that they get more white people and less non-white.
Just goes to show the Republican immigration plan has no thought behind it except that they want to keep anyone who is not white out of the nation.
Somewhat OT-
Why didn’t Dems walk out during the more ridiculous portions of Trump’s drug- induced SOTU?
(such as the totally false statements on immigration)
Nancy Pelosi has the answer:
“Let the attention be on his slobbering self,” Pelosi told members, according to two sources in the room. “If you want to walk out, don’t come in.”
“Any kind of similar interruption by Democrats [you lie!] would only fuel the Republican base and distract from Democratic attempts to rebut the speech after the fact, Pelosi argued.”
What happened to the Womens March? Where is #Resist? Why do Dems suck lollypops while Repubs roll over them? I am for engagement, but wouldn’t respect for the institution be satisfied by showing up, and then leaving if the President got insulting with his lies? I would do it at a dinner party after repeated lies and insults; would not it be also appropriate for this media-political rally event called SOTU (USA! USA! USA!)?
There are probably 75-100 HoR R members who will never vote for amnesty under any circumstances. A vote for amnesty would be an immediate primary challenge. The only thing which is giving this reform ANY sort of chance is the number of retiring R members who don’t need to worry about a primary challenge.
The thing that is giving this reform a chance is the fact that it may come to the floor.
Pelosi is right…look at how the Republicans are talking about the “lack of respect” because Democrats didn’t stand up with Republicans every time Trump finished a sentence without saying Nazis are great. Imagine how much worse it would be if Democrats walked out. The argument over that would be a distraction from Trump’s speech, and its badness. The Democrats protested silently, and anyone paying attention knows what they had to say…that’s good enough for this event.
How about we bring in a trained “YOU LIE” parrot, whenever it hears Trump speaking aloud, or sees his thumbs tweeting, the bird just repeats “BWAAAKK — YOU LIE” incessantly until Trump stops?
There is a good chance some of those primaries will serve the same purpose… by poisoning their own wells with bitter infighting over obscure issues only they care about, they perpetuate the descent of the Republican party into well-deserved chaos.
They willingly accepted the bitter-headed, bigoted Tea Mob organ transplant to try to beat Obama in 2012, but now the new organ is rejecting the original body, instead of the other way around.
Or something like that… the transplant has become the whole organism, everyone to the left of Limbaugh is now considered an outsider by their zealous new managers.
Showing even passive respect for Trump seems, to me at least, to be something of an act of easy treason, thinly veiled and mutually adhered to by the party faithful in patriot garb.
I call it stubborn intransigence by a recalcitrant Republican party.
It is hard to define it any simpler or more accurately.
“I don’t know if he just has a misunderstanding of the law or he’s intentionally misrepresenting the facts.”
Respectfully sir, I’m certain both of these assertions are true.
Wonder if this time with nothing that matters to Donald coming up if republicans will let things shut down for a while. Especially if it slowed down Muller and the FBI!
This is interesting especially coming form CATO. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised if the only real reason Donald and Republicans are making this an issue is to appeal to their racist base.
You clearly know nothing about Cato. They are libertarian, and they interpret “libertarian” as “use massive open-borders immigration to blast open the labor force and lessen business costs”. They are more open-borders than Nancy Pelosi, and that’s pretty far out on that limb.
True I don’t know anything about them so sorry if I assumed they were like most white conservatives and hated all foreigners, well at least the brown ones! That said the 5 points seems pretty reasonably correct, regardless of their true reason for letting folks in.