- Joined
- Oct 21, 2015
- Messages
- 53,813
- Reaction score
- 10,864
- Location
- Kentucky
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
How about a DACA deal that has a path to citizenship for 1.8 million in exchange for a huge increase in border security (not necessarily a wall) AND the elimination of sanctuary cities, that would no longer be necessary since Democrats would be agreeing that illegal immigration has come to an end?
Deal, or No Deal?
If there's no wall half of us will vote Democrat just to show our anger.
How about a DACA deal that has a path to citizenship for 1.8 million in exchange for a huge increase in border security (not necessarily a wall) AND the elimination of sanctuary cities, that would no longer be necessary since Democrats would be agreeing that illegal immigration has come to an end?
Deal, or No Deal?
How about a DACA deal that has a path to citizenship for 1.8 million in exchange for a huge increase in border security (not necessarily a wall) AND the elimination of sanctuary cities, that would no longer be necessary since Democrats would be agreeing that illegal immigration has come to an end?
Deal, or No Deal?
How about a DACA deal that has a path to citizenship for 1.8 million in exchange for a huge increase in border security (not necessarily a wall) AND the elimination of sanctuary cities, that would no longer be necessary since Democrats would be agreeing that illegal immigration has come to an end?
Deal, or No Deal?
Federal government does not have the authority to get rid of sanctuary cities(probably, it has not been tested in court yet).
This was actually the answer I expected from hypocrites.
There you go with your moderate posting again.
I realize that and that's not really what I said anyway. Assuming the Democrats as a whole could arbitrarily eliminate sanctuary cities if they wanted to, would the Democrats deal that away for the rest?
If you guys are admitting that you will vote democrat out of anger next time. Trump will lose. You'll get no wall and rampant amnesty. Great "plan".
How about a DACA deal that has a path to citizenship for 1.8 million in exchange for a huge increase in border security (not necessarily a wall) AND the elimination of sanctuary cities, that would no longer be necessary since Democrats would be agreeing that illegal immigration has come to an end?
Deal, or No Deal?
If there's no wall half of us will vote Democrat just to show our anger.
We will not accept any more lies about our border security.
So, you want the wall for the good of the GOP because you are so moderate. Thanks for clearing that up.
The point though is that sanctuary cities are not something that the democrats have to negotiate with. It would be akin to asking US republicans if they would deal away Australia in order to get something they wanted. Australia is not theirs to give.
Not having the wall is the moderate position. :roll:
Crybabies jumping parties because they didn't get what they wanted and expecting the Democrats to give you want you want is hypocrisy.
No deal. Anti-American globalists in both the Democrat and Republican parties don't want illegal immigration to end. They get votes from those that aid and employ illegal immigrants and their relatives who are here legally.Those same anti-American globalists that in the Democrat and Republican parties can't be trusted to uphold any enforcement measures. Since the 30 years ago Reagan amnesty was enacted.We went from having around three million illegals to the eleven to twenty million illegals in our country. We got little to no enforcement against the scum who hire illegals. We still got a porous border. Our government sues states and cities that enact any anti-illegal immigration laws while ignoring sanctuary cities and states. Our presidents are allowed to grant executive amnesty thus making this problem even worse. So why on God's green earth would anyone with at least an ounce of common sense trust that any enforcement measures be upheld? Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me.
Not having the wall is the moderate position. :roll:
Crybabies jumping parties because they didn't get what they wanted and expecting the Democrats to give you want you want is hypocrisy.
We have a wall now!!!!!
actually no
they want DACA
they wanted CHIP
they have other wants
it is a negotiation.....give to get
only this time, the wall is non negotiable (at least that is what trump says)
that is the way it is actually supposed to work
I can understand not voting for politicians who don't uphold campaign promises. Which is why I will never vote for RINOs. By voting for RINOs you encourage the republican party to prop up more RINOs. A vote for a RINO is basically telling the republican party its okay to move further to the left.However at the same time I will never vote for democrats just because I am mad at the republicans. Because what they enact will just speed up what the RINOs want. So I will just vote 3rd party or leave that part of the ballot blank if I don't like any of the candidates. Which is I didn't vote for Trump, Romney or McCain.
Are you people this ignorant? It only works because that's what Trump wants. That's the position he has taken. My position is a wall is pointless. The wall is not going to do anything to stop illegal immigrants. It's just gonna cost us more money. Money we could be spending on other things like NASA.
that is always a wonderful way to win an argument....
start by calling people ignorant
blah blah blah....the rest goes unheard....as it should be
If there's no wall half of us will vote Democrat just to show our anger.
We will not accept any more lies about our border security.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?