Democrats attack Trump for enforcing their own immigration law
That’s not an uncommon thing I’ve noticed, when a governing party gets sent to the opposition benches. Their mantra seems to be “Opposition = oppose everything, regardless”.
I can’t speak for others, but I would be thrilled to death if Democrats enacted pro-life legislation and tried to undo Roe v Wade. No opposition from me.
How many Democrats that passed Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965 are denouncing the current actions? Do you think perhaps things have changed since 1965?
And to pour salt on the wound, the deportees were reminded to file their tax returns.
Heard it on radio this morning.
The height of hypocrisy. They should repeal it if they do not agree with it anymore. They had ample time to do it.
Does Mexico have to take the people that are not Mexicans? I have visions of non-Mexicans sitting on planes that just go back and forth between Mexican and US airports.
This seems like a stupid law, no matter who wrote it and signed it in to law.
I agree they should have repealed it. Then again, I think we should be moving towards open borders which the Democrats disagree with.
John has a point. The Republicans were the ones to enact the universal right to abortions and then became the opposition to it.
Which is my issue. If the law is X and you think it should change, then fix the law, don’t just pretend it doesn’t exist. If you can’t get support then you need to change hearts.
Personally I don’t care if they want to change the laws to allow for different immigration patterns. What I oppose is rewarding those who broke the law even if one thinks the law was unjust. If current illegal immigrants would be eligible under new laws I think they should still be deported and then allowed to apply under the laws in force at that time. I’m even okay if it means they get some “credit” from the time they were here illegally, but I also think that there should be an amount of punishment as justice for breaking the law in the first place. So perhaps you get preference for 10 years here illegally, but you have to pay a 10,000 fine over the next 10 years or something.
My whole point is that they should make changes if they think it is broken. But those changes have to include justice and not just be an act of mercy that says crime is not without consequences.
Good points. I heard many immigrants originated from South American countries which puts added pressure on Mexico.
I believe they passed a bill in the Senate but it failed in the House.
Then they need to work across the houses to understand what the issues were and what could be modified to address any concerns.
I think the problem is most politicians will not compromise as a general principle because they think it makes them look weak. That is not to say they shouldn’t take a stand on certain non negotiables, but there needs to be more statementship that says “You want ABC and I want XYZ, I am willing to accept M instead of Z if you will accept L instead of A. Neither of us will budge on B or Y so are they 100% opposed or can we accommodate those issues with G and R to both sides satisfaction?”
I don’t understand why you make this point so often. It’s besides the point I was making.
It’s not even an accurate point. Not sure why it would be brought up given it’s inaccuracy.
Say it ain’t so! :rotfl:
Documents released on Tuesday by the Department of Homeland Security revealed the broad scope of the president’s ambitions: to publicize crimes by undocumented immigrants; strip such immigrants of privacy protections; enlist local police officers as enforcers; erect new detention facilities; discourage asylum seekers; and, ultimately, speed up deportations.
The new enforcement policies put into practice language that Mr. Trump used on the campaign trail, vastly expanding the definition of “criminal aliens” and warning that such unauthorized immigrants “routinely victimize Americans,” disregard the “rule of law and pose a threat” to people in communities across the United States.
Despite those assertions in the new documents, research shows lower levels of crime among immigrants than among native-born Americans.
The president’s new immigration policies are likely to be welcomed by some law enforcement officials around the country …
But taken together, the new policies are a rejection of the sometimes more restrained efforts by former Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush and their predecessors, who sought to balance protecting the nation’s borders with fiscal, logistical and humanitarian limits on the exercise of laws passed by Congress.
I doubt most are even alive, much less have any political power.
Both major parties have changed since 1965. The donkeys have run to the left, the elephants have run to the right. Especially when it comes to issues of race and civil rights.
I recall a liberal friend of mine watching archival footage of political speeches on one of the C-SPAN shows featuring Senator Robert Byrd talking about MLK and being surprised that it “really wasn’t that positive”.
Apparently he didn’t know Senator Byrd (D) was once a member of the KKK.
So I don’t think this particular slam is that relevant.
What’s inaccurate? The mostly Republican-appointed court ruled 7-2 in favor of Roe, with one of the dissenting judges being appointed by JFK. Nixon himself favored abortion of interracial couples, according to those tapes.
What I would do if I had the power is to throw out party platforms. They serve no legal purpose. I would love for the Democrats to widen their tent and recruit more bluedogs as they did in 2006. Only way IMO for them to regain some appeal.
Ugh…it’s just nauseating. And they actually expect us to buy their hogwash excuses as morally superior reasoning. :rolleyes: