The Republican Utopia

[Landlord]

On 8/12/2018 at 9:01 AM, Ric Flair said:

It’s pretty simple to have a vocational expert determine if someone is physically capable of work.

 

So you, a fiscal conservative, want the federal government to employ more people all over the country who's only job is to make evaluations on whether other people are capable of work? Sounds hilariously hypocritical and wasteful to me.

 

 

 

 

 

18 hours ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Absolutely correct. I really think the liberals who want to eliminate ICE are opposed to immigration enforcement. Many of them seem to want open borders. They certainly can't articulate what immigration laws they would support.

 

That's because you listen to partisan talking points, not actual people. That isn't true of citizens, or politicians. As far as citizens go, here's a harvard-harris poll where 79% of people polled said they want a secure border compared to an open border - http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_Jan2018-Refield_RegisteredVoters_XTab.pdf 

 

As far as politicans go, Shumer authored an immigration bill that would have devoted more money to border security. Thirty house democrats this year sponsored an immigration bill that enhances technology to monitor the border better. "In the Senate, all but one Democrat voted for similar immigration legislation sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware." In 2013 every single Democrat in the Senate voted for an immigration bill that provided more funding and thousands more agents to patrol the border. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, "“We have to have a secure border... We need to make sure that people are, in fact, documented.” 

 

So. You're either wrong or you're lying. Which is it? 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as what immigration laws I personally would support, a good start would be humane laws that don't separate families, that are reasonable to implement and offer a viable path to citizenship. 

[Ric Flair]

35 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

So you, a fiscal conservative, want the federal government to employ more people all over the country who's only job is to make evaluations on whether other people are capable of work? Sounds hilariously hypocritical and wasteful to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's because you listen to partisan talking points, not actual people. That isn't true of citizens, or politicians. As far as citizens go, here's a harvard-harris poll where 79% of people polled said they want a secure border compared to an open border - http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_Jan2018-Refield_RegisteredVoters_XTab.pdf 

 

As far as politicans go, Shumer authored an immigration bill that would have devoted more money to border security. Thirty house democrats this year sponsored an immigration bill that enhances technology to monitor the border better. "In the Senate, all but one Democrat voted for similar immigration legislation sponsored by Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and Senator Chris Coons, Democrat of Delaware." In 2013 every single Democrat in the Senate voted for an immigration bill that provided more funding and thousands more agents to patrol the border. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, "“We have to have a secure border... We need to make sure that people are, in fact, documented.” 

 

So. You're either wrong or you're lying. Which is it? 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as what immigration laws I personally would support, a good start would be humane laws that don't separate families, that are reasonable to implement and offer a viable path to citizenship. 

 

There are all kinds of vocational counselors out there. A simple vocational assessment doesn’t cost much. Maybe that’s not even necessary. It’s usually pretty easy to tell whether someone is so physically disabled as to prevent him from working. And what’s your alternative? To just take everyone’s word for it?

 

No doubt a majority of the country wants a secure border. I just doubt whether many Democrats do. Schumer and other Democrats have been playing games woth immigration policy for decades. They claim to want tougher border security, but refuse to support it or actually vote for it. They put together these BS bills that purport to call for it, but then fill them full of poison pills that they know Republicans will never vote for. So they can claim they favor border security and tougher enforcement, when neither is true. 

 

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/chuck-schumers-three-decades-immigration-lies/

 

So what actual efforts would the likes of Acasio-Cortez support to make sure that people are documented? She certainly doesn’t like ICE arresting those who aren’t. Democrats are comparing ICE to the Gestapo for trying to enforce our immigration laws. 

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Ric Flair said:

Democrats are comparing ICE to the Gestapo for trying to enforce our immigration laws. 

No, that's not it at all. It's about ICE's tactics and treatment of our fellow human beings. It's both possible to enforce our laws and be humane and not descend into barbarism. For example, does this seem like a good federal agency to you, plainclothes "officers" who won't show any identification:

 

Federal Investigation Finds 'Significant Issues' At Immigrant Detention Centers

Migrants describe hunger and solitary confinement at for-profit detention center

Shocking treatment of immigrants by US immigration agents revealed in new report

Abusive Conditions for Women and Children in US Immigration Holding Cells

Immigrants Died In ICE Detention Centers After ‘Inadequate’ Medical Care

[knapplc]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

No doubt a majority of the country wants a secure border. I just doubt whether many Democrats do.

 

Please provide sources for Congressional Democrats who are running on a platform of open borders.

 

Or provide sources for Congressional Democrats who have introduced legislation that would open America's borders.

 

Or provide sources for Congressional Democrats whose policies have had/would have a net result of creating open borders.

 

Without sources for any of these claims, they all fall under Hitchen's Razor.

[knapplc]

15 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

Schumer and other Democrats have been playing games woth immigration policy for decades. They claim to want tougher border security, but refuse to support it or actually vote for it. They put together these BS bills that purport to call for it, but then fill them full of poison pills that they know Republicans will never vote for. So they can claim they favor border security and tougher enforcement, when neither is true. 

 

This is factually inaccurate.

 

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26976/chuck-schumer/40/immigration

[Landlord]

48 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

No doubt a majority of the country wants a secure border. I just doubt whether many Democrats do.

 

Again, you're either wrong or you're lying. Which is it? 68% of Democrats polled choose  a secure border over an open border. 

 

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_Jan2018-Refield_RegisteredVoters_XTab.pdf

 

 

[Ric Flair]

14 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

Again, you're either wrong or you're lying. Which is it? 68% of Democrats polled choose  a secure border over an open border. 

 

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_Jan2018-Refield_RegisteredVoters_XTab.pdf

 

 

 

Then their leaders should start paying attention. Here’s a great column from a liberal publication about how dramatically liberal positions on immigration have changed in the last decade.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-democrats-immigration-mistake/528678/

14 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

Again, you're either wrong or you're lying. Which is it? 68% of Democrats polled choose  a secure border over an open border. 

 

http://harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Final_HHP_Jan2018-Refield_RegisteredVoters_XTab.pdf

 

 

 

What do they mean by “a secure border.” Definitions matter. Are they cool with funding Trump’s wall?

[Ric Flair]

52 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

This is factually inaccurate.

 

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/26976/chuck-schumer/40/immigration

 

Of course he wants to be seen as having a strong record on birder security. So these bills are structured to give him cover. He can vote for seemingly pro-enforcement bills that really aren’t...or vote for bills that support enforcement that will never pass. It’s all part of the game.

[knapplc]

3 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Of course he wants to be seen as having a strong record on birder security. So these bills are structured to give him cover. He can vote for seemingly pro-enforcement bills that really aren’t...or vote for bills that support enforcement that will never pass. It’s all part of the game.

 

Then it should be easy to provide proof that his voting record is a sham.  It took me less than a minute to find his voting record disproving the false claims you've made.

 

I'll give you five minutes. Show us that this is all a sham. Show us how Schumer has tried to tear down border security.

[Landlord]

12 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

What do they mean by “a secure border.” Definitions matter. Are they cool with funding Trump’s wall?

 

Nobody with any sense should be cool with funding Trump's wall, as it's ineffective, misguided, and a terrible use of money and resources. 

[Ric Flair]

20 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

Nobody with any sense should be cool with funding Trump's wall, as it's ineffective, misguided, and a terrible use of money and resources. 

 

I have mixed feelings about whether a physical wall is the most practical way to secure the border. But there’s no question in my mind that we need to. And I see no credible proposals being advanced by Democrats to take illegal immigration seriously.

[Ric Flair]

28 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Then it should be easy to provide proof that his voting record is a sham.  It took me less than a minute to find his voting record disproving the false claims you've made.

 

I'll give you five minutes. Show us that this is all a sham. Show us how Schumer has tried to tear down border security.

 

Here’s a good summary: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2018/06/20/memo-to-republicans-call-schumers-bluff-and-bring-a-sensible-immigration-bill-to-the-floor-n2492602

 

You’re welcome. 

[Landlord]

7 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I have mixed feelings about whether a physical wall is the most practical way to secure the border. But there’s no question in my mind that we need to. And I see no credible proposals being advanced by Democrats to take illegal immigration seriously.

 

 

That's because you've hardwired your brain to immediately associate anything Democratic as non-credible. 

[BigRedBuster]

Both parties (OMG.....I said it) have had ample time over the last number of decades to fix immigration and have failed miserably.

 

Problem is, this administration is totally failing it too.

 

Sure, they want a "secure border".  But, what are they planning on doing with illegal immigrants in the US now and have been for decades?  What are they doing to fix legal immigration so that it's easier for legitimate people wanting to come to this country to work hard and better their lives?  To this, this administration is pathetic.  Now they are demonizing actual legal immigrants too.

 

There is no way in hell we are deporting 12,000,000 people.  That would be both a humanitarian and economic disaster for our country.

 

Until people start trying to fix THAT problem, all they are doing is yelling at each other across the isle.  

 

And...the wall is the dumbest waste of tax payer money I've heard in a very long time and it's nothing more than to garner votes from racist idiots.

[Guy Chamberlin]

14 minutes ago, Ric Flair said:

 

I have mixed feelings about whether a physical wall is the most practical way to secure the border. But there’s no question in my mind that we need to. And I see no credible proposals being advanced by Democrats to take illegal immigration seriously.

 

 

Before Donald Trump, Barack Obama was known in the Hispanic community as "the deporter-in-chief" because of what was then perceived as his aggressive immigration policies.

 

Studies have shown that Mexican and Central American immigration is significantly lower than it was a decade ago, that illegal immigrants are putting more into the American economy than they are taking out, and that relatively few voters or policy makers have considered it a pressing issue prior to the recent election.  

 

A 2,000 mile border wall, the new layer of government oversight and spending, are the heated rhetoric are the exact opposite of what we need.  So I think the Democrat alternative is about the right amount of serious.