DACA Going Caca

 

There won’t be an immigration agreement. The President’s signature issue is going to be handled to his satisfaction or it will be vetoed.

The bipartisan bill in the Senate, which is mostly Democrat but with a few squish boys like Flake, makes minimal and irrelevant changes to chain migration and visas but grants amnesty to DACA folks. The bill states it will fund a wall over a decade which is, of course, a complete lie.

The President compromised already and greatly upset a big part of his immigration-hawk base. Sen. Grassley has a plan that the President will sign. Schumer has a plan the left’s psycho-base can live with, essentially making his bill something the president will never sign.

March 5 is the theoretical deadline although there are some rogue activist judges who feel otherwise, at least until the SCOTUS slaps them down based on that crazy non-malleable document all the old white men left us handcuffed with.

There will be no acceptable compromise I expect. Your guess?

I hope the dreamers are all deported, aggressively, if the dems fail to give the president his wall, NOW, and legitimate immigration reform, NOW. The future of the nation is at stake here and the president knows it. Giving in to democrat demands is suicide for Trump and our country. Time for hardball.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 99 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Rush Limbaugh made an interesting offer at the 43 minute point on the February 18, 2018 Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, that he would be willing to agree to most illegals staying here getting “citizenship”, provided that they couldn’t vote for 15-25 years.

    That’s more liberal than me, I am suggesting that they would only have “Legal Status”, but never have “citizenship” or be able to vote as the punishment for coming here illegally. Voting is the sine quo non of citizenship, which is why a new classification of legal status would be needed, a type of green card that could never lead to citizenship.

    Rush said that the Democrats would never agree to that. Maybe the Democratic Party might not agree to that, but likely almost every one who is here illegally would agree to this in a heartbeat.

    So is Rush advocating for “amnesty”?

    Or perhaps my suggestion for legal status makes sense.

    If Rush is on my side, perhaps discretion might be the better part of valor.

    VDH is on my side on Trump. Andrew McCarthy is on my side on FISA.

    If you want to pick sides on issues , you side with Jennifer Rubin.

    How about you don’t use would agrees with you as your argument ?

    You don’t think that Rush is a conservative?

    • #91
  2. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Rush Limbaugh made an interesting offer at the 43 minute point on the February 18, 2018 Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, that he would be willing to agree to most illegals staying here getting “citizenship”, provided that they couldn’t vote for 15-25 years.

    That’s more liberal than me, I am suggesting that they would only have “Legal Status”, but never have “citizenship” or be able to vote as the punishment for coming here illegally. Voting is the sine quo non of citizenship, which is why a new classification of legal status would be needed, a type of green card that could never lead to citizenship.

    Rush said that the Democrats would never agree to that. Maybe the Democratic Party might not agree to that, but likely almost every one who is here illegally would agree to this in a heartbeat.

    So is Rush advocating for “amnesty”?

    Or perhaps my suggestion for legal status makes sense.

    If Rush is on my side, perhaps discretion might be the better part of valor.

    VDH is on my side on Trump. Andrew McCarthy is on my side on FISA.

    If you want to pick sides on issues , you side with Jennifer Rubin.

    How about you don’t use would agrees with you as your argument ?

    You don’t think that Rush is a conservative?

    Don’t see how you got that. Let me dumb it down:

    If you want to play a game of fellow travelers you may. I will stick ever NT out there to you, and demand you defend all their statements.

    Or, you can not try to say “Rush agrees with me, so I must be right.”

    Bill Krystol agrees with you and he voted for Clinton. Ruben agrees with you, and she now rejects policies that she used to support simply because Trump is for them.

    So, Gary, I’d back off the appeals to authority, because you do not want to be defending you team.

    Rush’s offer is wrong. The law would not last, and would be changed down the road far before 10 years.

    • #92
  3. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

     

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Rush Limbaugh made an interesting offer at the 43 minute point on the February 18, 2018 Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, that he would be willing to agree to most illegals staying here getting “citizenship”, provided that they couldn’t vote for 15-25 years.

    That’s more liberal than me, I am suggesting that they would only have “Legal Status”, but never have “citizenship” or be able to vote as the punishment for coming here illegally. Voting is the sine quo non of citizenship, which is why a new classification of legal status would be needed, a type of green card that could never lead to citizenship.

    Rush said that the Democrats would never agree to that. Maybe the Democratic Party might not agree to that, but likely almost every one who is here illegally would agree to this in a heartbeat.

    So is Rush advocating for “amnesty”?

    Or perhaps my suggestion for legal status makes sense.

    If Rush is on my side, perhaps discretion might be the better part of valor.

    VDH is on my side on Trump. Andrew McCarthy is on my side on FISA.

    If you want to pick sides on issues , you side with Jennifer Rubin.

    How about you don’t use would agrees with you as your argument ?

    You don’t think that Rush is a conservative?

    Don’t see how you got that. Let me dumb it down:

    If you want to play a game of fellow travelers you may. I will stick ever NT out there to you, and demand you defend all their statements.

    Or, you can not try to say “Rush agrees with me, so I must be right.”

    Bill Krystol agrees with you and he voted for Clinton. Ruben agrees with you, and she now rejects policies that she used to support simply because Trump is for them.

    So, Gary, I’d back off the appeals to authority, because you do not want to be defending you team.

    Rush’s offer is wrong. The law would not last, and would be changed down the road far before 10 years.

    Not only that, the proposal is incoherent.  You can’t combine “citizenship” with “unable to vote”.

     

    • #93
  4. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Rush Limbaugh made an interesting offer at the 43 minute point on the February 18, 2018 Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, that he would be willing to agree to most illegals staying here getting “citizenship”, provided that they couldn’t vote for 15-25 years.

    That’s more liberal than me, I am suggesting that they would only have “Legal Status”, but never have “citizenship” or be able to vote as the punishment for coming here illegally. Voting is the sine quo non of citizenship, which is why a new classification of legal status would be needed, a type of green card that could never lead to citizenship.

    Rush said that the Democrats would never agree to that. Maybe the Democratic Party might not agree to that, but likely almost every one who is here illegally would agree to this in a heartbeat.

    So is Rush advocating for “amnesty”?

    Or perhaps my suggestion for legal status makes sense.

    If Rush is on my side, perhaps discretion might be the better part of valor.

    VDH is on my side on Trump. Andrew McCarthy is on my side on FISA.

    If you want to pick sides on issues , you side with Jennifer Rubin.

    How about you don’t use would agrees with you as your argument ?

    You don’t think that Rush is a conservative?

    Don’t see how you got that. Let me dumb it down:

    If you want to play a game of fellow travelers you may. I will stick ever NT out there to you, and demand you defend all their statements.

    Or, you can not try to say “Rush agrees with me, so I must be right.”

    Bill Krystol agrees with you and he voted for Clinton. Ruben agrees with you, and she now rejects policies that she used to support simply because Trump is for them.

    So, Gary, I’d back off the appeals to authority, because you do not want to be defending you team.

    Rush’s offer is wrong. The law would not last, and would be changed down the road far before 10 years.

    Not only that, the proposal is incoherent. You can’t combine “citizenship” with “unable to vote”.

    There are two options.  One is to create a new legal status.  Another is to have a super-long waiting period for people with illegal entry to go from a Green Card to Citizenship.

    Rush is right on this one.

    • #94
  5. HankMorgan Inactive
    HankMorgan
    @HankMorgan

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Rush Limbaugh made an interesting offer at the 43 minute point on the February 18, 2018 Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, that he would be willing to agree to most illegals staying here getting “citizenship”, provided that they couldn’t vote for 15-25 years.

    That’s more liberal than me, I am suggesting that they would only have “Legal Status”, but never have “citizenship” or be able to vote as the punishment for coming here illegally. Voting is the sine quo non of citizenship, which is why a new classification of legal status would be needed, a type of green card that could never lead to citizenship.

    Rush said that the Democrats would never agree to that. Maybe the Democratic Party might not agree to that, but likely almost every one who is here illegally would agree to this in a heartbeat.

    So is Rush advocating for “amnesty”?

    Or perhaps my suggestion for legal status makes sense.

    If Rush is on my side, perhaps discretion might be the better part of valor.

    VDH is on my side on Trump. Andrew McCarthy is on my side on FISA.

    If you want to pick sides on issues , you side with Jennifer Rubin.

    How about you don’t use would agrees with you as your argument ?

    You don’t think that Rush is a conservative?

    Don’t see how you got that. Let me dumb it down:

    If you want to play a game of fellow travelers you may. I will stick ever NT out there to you, and demand you defend all their statements.

    Or, you can not try to say “Rush agrees with me, so I must be right.”

    Bill Krystol agrees with you and he voted for Clinton. Ruben agrees with you, and she now rejects policies that she used to support simply because Trump is for them.

    So, Gary, I’d back off the appeals to authority, because you do not want to be defending you team.

    Rush’s offer is wrong. The law would not last, and would be changed down the road far before 10 years.

    Not only that, the proposal is incoherent. You can’t combine “citizenship” with “unable to vote”.

    There are two options. One is to create a new legal status. Another is to have a super-long waiting period for people with illegal entry to go from a Green Card to Citizenship.

    Rush is right on this one.

    I think the difference is that Rush wants all the Trump proposed immigration fixes in exchange for the amnesty, while it sounds like you are supporting passing it alone. Correct me if I’m wrong on that, as I think that is why you are encountering resistance here.

    • #95
  6. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    HankMorgan (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Miffed White Male (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):
    Rush Limbaugh made an interesting offer at the 43 minute point on the February 18, 2018 Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, that he would be willing to agree to most illegals staying here getting “citizenship”, provided that they couldn’t vote for 15-25 years.

    That’s more liberal than me, I am suggesting that they would only have “Legal Status”, but never have “citizenship” or be able to vote as the punishment for coming here illegally. Voting is the sine quo non of citizenship, which is why a new classification of legal status would be needed, a type of green card that could never lead to citizenship.

    Rush said that the Democrats would never agree to that. Maybe the Democratic Party might not agree to that, but likely almost every one who is here illegally would agree to this in a heartbeat.

    So is Rush advocating for “amnesty”?

    Or perhaps my suggestion for legal status makes sense.

    If Rush is on my side, perhaps discretion might be the better part of valor.

    VDH is on my side on Trump. Andrew McCarthy is on my side on FISA.

    If you want to pick sides on issues , you side with Jennifer Rubin.

    How about you don’t use would agrees with you as your argument ?

    You don’t think that Rush is a conservative?

    Don’t see how you got that. Let me dumb it down:

    If you want to play a game of fellow travelers you may. I will stick ever NT out there to you, and demand you defend all their statements.

    Or, you can not try to say “Rush agrees with me, so I must be right.”

    Bill Krystol agrees with you and he voted for Clinton. Ruben agrees with you, and she now rejects policies that she used to support simply because Trump is for them.

    So, Gary, I’d back off the appeals to authority, because you do not want to be defending you team.

    Rush’s offer is wrong. The law would not last, and would be changed down the road far before 10 years.

    Not only that, the proposal is incoherent. You can’t combine “citizenship” with “unable to vote”.

    There are two options. One is to create a new legal status. Another is to have a super-long waiting period for people with illegal entry to go from a Green Card to Citizenship.

    Rush is right on this one.

    I think the difference is that Rush wants all the Trump proposed immigration fixes in exchange for the amnesty, while it sounds like you are supporting passing it alone. Correct me if I’m wrong on that, as I think that is why you are encountering resistance here.

    I agree with the other Trump proposed immigration fixes like those in Canada and Australia.  I think that a 40 foot wall, 30 feet in the air and 10 feet in the ground is overkill; we would be better off with a series of twin or triple fences, with a road in between, as Israel uses.  But I agree with Trump’s reforms on chain migration and the visa lottery.

    • #96
  7. Bryan G. Stephens Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens
    @BryanGStephens

    There is no “overkill.” There is only “open fire” and “reload.”

    • #97
  8. HankMorgan Inactive
    HankMorgan
    @HankMorgan

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     

    I agree with the other Trump proposed immigration fixes like those in Canada and Australia. I think that a 40 foot wall, 30 feet in the air and 10 feet in the ground is overkill; we would be better off with a series of twin or triple fences, with a road in between, as Israel uses. But I agree with Trump’s reforms on chain migration and the visa lottery.

    Then the only problem is that if you give them legal status/citizenship you need to give them a path to citizenship/voting or the Democrats will have a pretty good talking point about “second class citizens” and we’ll lose that fight next election. Better to seem magnanimous now and give them a path with a reasonably long lead time and stringent legality requirements, which sounds like what Trump proposed. I don’t like it but I can’t see standing against it once we give them permanent legal status, which we have to do to get anything on immigration done.

    As for the wall/fence issue, the most cost effective solution would be a simple fence paired with drone patrols that spot and send out border patrol officers. But Obama is why we can’t have nice things. At first he played “deporter in chief” by reclassifying the statistics and not doing much different, but by the end of his second term the border patrol was used more to help illegal aliens get deeper into the country (catch on the border, take to the city, give a court date, then release never to be seen again) than to keep anyone out. Because of that we need to make the border as impermeable as we can for the next time a Democrat is in charge and inverts the purpose of the border patrol.

    • #98
  9. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    HankMorgan (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    I agree with the other Trump proposed immigration fixes like those in Canada and Australia. I think that a 40 foot wall, 30 feet in the air and 10 feet in the ground is overkill; we would be better off with a series of twin or triple fences, with a road in between, as Israel uses. But I agree with Trump’s reforms on chain migration and the visa lottery.

    Then the only problem is that if you give them legal status/citizenship you need to give them a path to citizenship/voting or the Democrats will have a pretty good talking point about “second class citizens” and we’ll lose that fight next election. Better to seem magnanimous now and give them a path with a reasonably long lead time and stringent legality requirements, which sounds like what Trump proposed. I don’t like it but I can’t see standing against it once we give them permanent legal status, which we have to do to get anything on immigration done.

    As for the wall/fence issue, the most cost effective solution would be a simple fence paired with drone patrols that spot and send out border patrol officers. But Obama is why we can’t have nice things. At first he played “deporter in chief” by reclassifying the statistics and not doing much different, but by the end of his second term the border patrol was used more to help illegal aliens get deeper into the country (catch on the border, take to the city, give a court date, then release never to be seen again) than to keep anyone out. Because of that we need to make the border as impermeable as we can for the next time a Democrat is in charge and inverts the purpose of the border patrol.

    You may be right.  We are a nation that is sending a red convertible into space, we might as well put up a massive wall to make a point.

    • #99
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.