Children and immigration reform

[Scarlet]

9 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

 

 

Lol that's a good one. 

 

$175 is pretty darn close though, isn't it.

Lol that's a good one....it's $75 not $175 

[Archy1221]

7 hours ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

9 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

America First Legal is certainly my go to source for unbiased and comprehensive review of what I'm sure is an agenda free analysis of any legal matter.

Go to whatever source you prefer because in case you weren’t paying attention, they used the same bill text any of “your” sources would be using.  But of course when you don’t like the true data and information, attack who puts it out
 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Archy1221]

28 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

So what happens between 0-5,000 James? 
 

Oh, and while you’re answering that question, why not give us a true accounting of who is included in the 5,000 number and who is not incudes? (I guess 5,000 isn’t really 5,000)

 

While you’re doing that James, how about we look and compare codifying the at least 1.8 million illegal entries into the US to the Obama and Trump years.  You know when everyone was saying the border needed fixed at roughly 500,000 encounters a year.  So now we are fine with 1.8 million   
 

Yes Filidorkski.  Spew those facts.  Please!  

[funhusker]

2 hours ago, Scarlet said:

Lol that's a good one....it's $75 not $175 

He's adding the 60B to the $114 that you've admitted that the US has given.

[SECHusker]

10 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

The highlights from Chris Murphy’s twitter suggest this bill is worse than we could have imagined.  Ooofffff

 

 

 

Language says "encountered." So once 5k or so immigrants are "encountered" the provisions are enacted. 

 

Understanding you are definitely against the bill, but suggest reading what you are against before being confident in your objection.

[teachercd]

8 minutes ago, funhusker said:

He's adding the 60B to the $114 that you've admitted that the US has given.

Clearly, either way, it is a lot BUT if it gets us what we want (well, most of us) which is the end of those commies as we know it, it will be well worth it.

 

The issue/problem will be what do do with russia if/when they lose?  Do we reopen the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 (It think) and open our doors to them so that they can come to this country with ease?

 

Does the rest of europe do that?  Do we help them establish a normal government?  

 

 

[funhusker]

1 minute ago, teachercd said:

Clearly, either way, it is a lot BUT if it gets us what we want (well, most of us) which is the end of those commies as we know it, it will be well worth it.

 

The issue/problem will be what do do with russia if/when they lose?  Do we reopen the Displaced Persons Act of 1948 (It think) and open our doors to them so that they can come to this country with ease?

 

Does the rest of europe do that?  Do we help them establish a normal government?  

 

 

Let Disney build a Disney World in Moscow and call it good...

[Dr. Strangelove]

5 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

Go to whatever source you prefer because in case you weren’t paying attention, they used the same bill text any of “your” sources would be using.  But of course when you don’t like the true data and information, attack who puts it out
 

 

I'll be honest, it was a long read and to save the last vestiges of what few functioning neurons I have remaining, I avoid 'sources' on Twitter named anything along the lines of "America First XYZ". You should too.

 

My advice to you is to recognize that this bill is imperfect - anything short of major immigration reform would be - but to simultaneously understand that you're never going to get 60 Senators to agree on a different bill. If you truly believe that Donald Trump will be able to get 60 votes on something next year, by all means, continue to be anger farmed by the MAGA movement. 

 

This bill is it. There won't be another bipartisan agreement. 60 votes on something else isn't happening. You either actually think the border needs to be addressed or you just want to use the border to elect Donald Trump.

[funhusker]

6 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I'll be honest, it was a long read and to save the last vestiges of what few functioning neurons I have remaining, I avoid 'sources' on Twitter named anything along the lines of "America First XYZ". You should too.

 

My advice to you is to recognize that this bill is imperfect - anything short of major immigration reform would be - but to simultaneously understand that you're never going to get 60 Senators to agree on a different bill. If you truly believe that Donald Trump will be able to get 60 votes on something next year, by all means, continue to be anger farmed by the MAGA movement. 

 

This bill is it. There won't be another bipartisan agreement. 60 votes on something else isn't happening. You either actually think the border needs to be addressed or you just want to use the border to elect Donalt Trump.

Some people use a broken dishwasher as an excuse to stop doing the dishes...

[Dr. Strangelove]

7 minutes ago, funhusker said:

Some people use a broken dishwasher as an excuse to stop doing the dishes...

I do admit, it's pretty funny to see the Republican Party on the cusp of one of their biggest policy victories in 20 years, winning the battle against Democrats who've opposed these kinds of immigration restrictions since the 1990s, only to deem them not restrictive enough because the Orange Cult Leader wants to win an election to avoid going to prison.

 

They're going to torpedo one of the few policy goals they have all in the name of one of Felon-to-be-Trump. A form of self immolation that is hilarious. The border issue will never be addressed beyond this point. Republicans will never get 60 votes next year to pass even more restrictive policy. 

 

But hey, why fix problems when you can win elections? 

[DevoHusker]

48 minutes ago, funhusker said:

He's adding the 60B to the $114 that you've admitted that the US has given.

Yes, thank you. 

[Archy1221]

32 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

2 hours ago, Archy1221 said:

 

I'll be honest, it was a long read and to save the last vestiges of what few functioning neurons I have remaining, I avoid 'sources' on Twitter named anything along the lines of "America First XYZ". You should too.

Im Glad you were able to admit to complaining about a source w/o even reading what is posted.  It is disconcerting though for you to complain about a source when the source is taking direct text and posting it for all to read and make their own judgements.  You should probably quit doing that. 

[Scarlet]

15 hours ago, DevoHusker said:

3 times the money to Ukraine than for the border...after we've already sent them the neighborhood of $200 billion.

 

 

45 minutes ago, funhusker said:

He's adding the 60B to the $114 that you've admitted that the US has given.

His quote was "already sent them in the neighborhood of $200 billion".  Now we're adding proposed future expenditures to get try to get close to the $200 billion number he just tossed out there?  I also linked a more recent analysis showing we've sent $75 billion to Ukraine.  The $114 billion is clearly noted in his link as being for other neighboring countries affected by the war.  

[Archy1221]

37 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

 

My advice to you is to recognize that this bill is imperfect - anything short of major immigration reform would be - but to simultaneously understand that you're never going to get 60 Senators to agree on a different bill. If you truly believe that Donald Trump will be able to get 60 votes on something next year, by all means, continue to be anger farmed by the MAGA movement. 

My advice to you is to realize this bill is most likely worse than if we would just enforce existing law.  My other advice is to understand that “just pass something” isn’t a good strategy to actually fixing a problem.