Protect Dreamers and build the wall, and we can all win

[nota bene]

So argues the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News:

A deal in which America protects Dreamers and gives them a clear and simple path to citizenship while offering real protection on the border would be a way for both the President and Democratic leaders to walk away from this shutdown as winners. What's more, the American people would support them. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2019/01/17/protect-dreamers-build-wall-can-win

Is this a compromise you could live with?

 

[markjs]

So argues the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News:

A deal in which America protects Dreamers and gives them a clear and simple path to citizenship while offering real protection on the border would be a way for both the President and Democratic leaders to walk away from this shutdown as winners. What's more, the American people would support them. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2019/01/17/protect-dreamers-build-wall-can-win

Is this a compromise you could live with?

Yeah but the trouble is, Trump's base can't, that's amnesty for folks. There's no way thy give DACA. This isn't happening, there will be no wall and No DACA. Eventually somehow they will have to open the government, but neither DACA nor the wll will ever happen. Too much fear of browning to ever allow for DACA, and even Republicans in Washington know this is only about a win for Trump, and is irrelevant to border security, othter than wasting some money.

If it could happen I wouldn't care, but it has like a -99%chance, so there's that.....


Less than a snowballs chance in HELL any of the hard right is EVER OK with DACA amnesty.

 

[Middleground]

So argues the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News:

A deal in which America protects Dreamers and gives them a clear and simple path to citizenship while offering real protection on the border would be a way for both the President and Democratic leaders to walk away from this shutdown as winners. What's more, the American people would support them. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2019/01/17/protect-dreamers-build-wall-can-win

Is this a compromise you could live with?

I'd say sure -- Dreamers for the wall. But the wall is not real protection. But if taxpayers are okay with flushing their money down a toilet so be it.

 

[Mycroft]

So argues the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News:

A deal in which America protects Dreamers and gives them a clear and simple path to citizenship while offering real protection on the border would be a way for both the President and Democratic leaders to walk away from this shutdown as winners. What's more, the American people would support them. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2019/01/17/protect-dreamers-build-wall-can-win

Is this a compromise you could live with?

I can live with the conditions that the editorial proposes as a starting point in negotiations and I suspect Trump could also. After all, he has constantly asked for negotiations. However, I haven't seen any indication that either Pelosi or Schumer care about the Dreamers all that much nor any indication from them that they even want to negotiate.

It takes two to tango and one of the dance partners prefers to get out of town.

 

[nota bene]

Yeah but the trouble is, Trump's base can't, that's amnesty for folks. There's no way thy give DACA. This isn't happening, there will be no wall and No DACA. Eventually somehow they will have to open the government, but neither DACA nor the wll will ever happen. Too much fear of browning to ever allow for DACA, and even Republicans in Washington know this is only about a win for Trump, and is irrelevant to border security, othter than wasting some money.

If it could happen I wouldn't care, but it has like a -99%chance, so there's that.....

Less than a snowballs chance in HELL any of the hard right is EVER OK with DACA amnesty.

Oh, just stop it with your "browning of America" crap.

And think for a second about where Dallas is and what Texas is. (Hint: It used to be part of Mexico, so it's always been partly "brown.") :doh

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/0...e-become-biggest-population-group-state-2022/

 

[markjs]

Oh, just stop it with your "browning of America" crap.

And think for a second about where Dallas is and what Texas is. (Hint: It used to be part of Mexico, so it's always been partly "brown.") :doh

https://www.texastribune.org/2018/0...e-become-biggest-population-group-state-2022/

Deny all you like, fear of BROWNING OF THE VOTE, is very real and very much behind the immigration debate.

 

[nota bene]

I can live with the conditions that the editorial proposes as a starting point in negotiations and I suspect Trump could also. After all, he has constantly asked for negotiations. However, I haven't seen any indication that either Pelosi or Schumer care about the Dreamers all that much nor any indication from them that they even want to negotiate.

It takes two to tango and one of the dance partners prefers to get out of town.

Let's see what the President has to say today. Maybe he'll offer a compromise.

 

[ttwtt78640]

So argues the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News:

A deal in which America protects Dreamers and gives them a clear and simple path to citizenship while offering real protection on the border would be a way for both the President and Democratic leaders to walk away from this shutdown as winners. What's more, the American people would support them. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2019/01/17/protect-dreamers-build-wall-can-win

Is this a compromise you could live with?

Not likely because the 2006 border security 'deal' (the Secure Fence Act) mandated that fencing was to consist of about 700 miles of double row of secure fencing with a roadway between them - it was quickly amended such that less than 40 miles of the fence had to meet that requirement.

The term 'dreamer' was defined (under Obama) as one who entered as under age 16 (and were currently under age 31) without permission before 7/15/2007 and remained continuously in the US through 7/15/2012 - a very specific fixed 5 year time period. From what I have seen, the term 'dreamer' would now mean anyone who entered as a minor (age not specified?) without permission more than four years ago (date not specified, yet assumed to be when the bill is passed/enacted). The change of definition for a 'dreamer' is hugely expanded.

 

[KevinKohler]

I don't want the wall. Its not a one time cost. Its a permanent cost.

 

[markjs]

I don't want the wall. Its not a one time cost. Its a permanent cost.

And this is about a win for Trump, it has NOTHING to do with any actual desire for border security, so there's always that.....:roll:

 

[Mycroft]

Let's see what the President has to say today. Maybe he'll offer a compromise.

Maybe, but I don't think so. I think he'll either give a time dependent ultimatum or he'll just say enough is enough and move on to the national emergency route.

But yes, let's wait to see what he has to say.

 

[Greenbeard]

"Compromise" isn't the word when one party has a gun to 800K heads.

 

[cabse5]

So argues the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News:

A deal in which America protects Dreamers and gives them a clear and simple path to citizenship while offering real protection on the border would be a way for both the President and Democratic leaders to walk away from this shutdown as winners. What's more, the American people would support them. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2019/01/17/protect-dreamers-build-wall-can-win

Is this a compromise you could live with?

I think this dreamers-for-wall part of the negotiation no longer exists. I think the only purpose of proposing it in the first place was to show how unassailable dems were on their position of no wall.

 

[Airyaman]

I think this dreamers-for-wall part of the negotiation no longer exists. I think the only purpose of proposing it in the first place was to show how unassailable dems were on their position of no wall.

Trump walked away from $25B for his wall in exchange for a pathway for Dreamers. Tbf, there were other provisions he did not like, but those were the big 2 compromises.

 

[HumblePi]

So argues the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News:

A deal in which America protects Dreamers and gives them a clear and simple path to citizenship while offering real protection on the border would be a way for both the President and Democratic leaders to walk away from this shutdown as winners. What's more, the American people would support them. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2019/01/17/protect-dreamers-build-wall-can-win

Is this a compromise you could live with?

Just last night, democrats added $1 Billion in Border-Related Spending to Measures to Reopen Government. Trump won't take it, I guaranteed that because it doesn't specify the 5.6 billion he wants for his wall. Democrats will not fund a wall.

https://nyti.ms/2Hkipqn

[snip]The proposal to include more spending on border measures is scheduled for a vote next week, according to two senior Democratic officials. The plan reflects a shift in strategy by congressional Democrats, who have maintained that they would not give the president a counterproposal until he drops his insistence on a wall and signs legislation to reopen the government. It is an attempt to rebut Mr. Trump’s repeated portrayal of Democrats as opponents of border security and their denunciation of his wall as an embrace of open borders.

About half the money, $524 million, would be for additional infrastructure at ports of entry on the border, one Democrat said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the plans have not been formally announced, while $563 million more would be inserted to fund 75 immigration judges, who adjudicate the claims of migrants who make asylum claims at the border.[/snip]

 

[jnug]

So argues the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News:

A deal in which America protects Dreamers and gives them a clear and simple path to citizenship while offering real protection on the border would be a way for both the President and Democratic leaders to walk away from this shutdown as winners. What's more, the American people would support them. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2019/01/17/protect-dreamers-build-wall-can-win

Is this a compromise you could live with?

Actually its the politicians that "win" in these stupid lets make a deal legislative efforts. They get to avoid doing the hard work required to actually "Legislate" and instead just give up in both directions and declare victory while the "people" lose. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[OrphanSlug]

So argues the editorial board of the Dallas Morning News:

A deal in which America protects Dreamers and gives them a clear and simple path to citizenship while offering real protection on the border would be a way for both the President and Democratic leaders to walk away from this shutdown as winners. What's more, the American people would support them. https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editorials/2019/01/17/protect-dreamers-build-wall-can-win

Is this a compromise you could live with?

This seemed to be the direction things would go if we were dealing with rational people (my opinion is reason and purpose is all but dead up on the hill these days.)

Dreamers, DACA, in exchange for the wall would make sense.

As with anything I’d like to see the fine print but it would have at least been reasonable on the assumption we knew the costs and had some means to make sure it did not end up as all new debt.

 

[nota bene]

Deny all you like, fear of BROWNING OF THE VOTE, is very real and very much behind the immigration debate.

I am asking you to focus. The editorial was written by a TEXAS newspaper's editorial board. You are missing my point entirely. But don't presume to speak for Texans.

 

[nota bene]

"Compromise" isn't the word when one party has a gun to 800K heads.

I don't even know what you mean here. But I'm guessing that you aren't in favor of any compromise?

 

[nota bene]

Actually its the politicians that "win" in these stupid lets make a deal legislative efforts. They get to avoid doing the hard work required to actually "Legislate" and instead just give up in both directions and declare victory while the "people" lose. Thanks but no thanks.

You don't think ending the government shutdown would be a win?

 

[markjs]

I am asking you to focus. The editorial was written by a TEXAS newspaper's editorial board. You are missing my point entirely. But don't presume to speak for Texans.

I said IDC, geat if they can work it out, I just have zero faith they can. Trump cn't be trusted to not fold on things he agreed to anyway. I just don't see any compromises, we're past that. If they can great, but I believe in the possibility slightly more than I do the tooth fairy.

 

[jnug]

You don't think ending the government shutdown would be a win?

They could end the shutdown tomorrow. Sign the bills that have been sent up from the House Mitch. Stop hiding and acting as if the Senate Majority Leader has no role to play other than abdicating his responsibility. His job is to move the ball, not play keep-away with it. Even if Trump vetos those bills and there are not enough votes to override, the ball will have been moved forward.

Crap Legislation is crap Legislation. It is today. It is tomorrow. It is under threat of shutdown or actual shutdown. Just as I do not believe in subversion of process and coercion by the President in trying to use a CR to get what he wants, I do not believe in crap Legislation to get out of a jam.

The Right voted for the chaos President. Sometimes people get what they asked for, whether they knew what they were doing or not. Next time people want to destroy parts of government and then have the unmitigated gall to ask it for something it wants, choose a champion that knows how to do more than flap his gums incoherently.

 

[Greenbeard]

I don't even know what you mean here. But I'm guessing that you aren't in favor of any compromise?

The president is attempting to starve and otherwise inflict suffering on hundreds of thousands of American citizens (soon to be tens of millions if this continues another week or two and impacts SNAP funding) to further his agenda. Rewarding that sort of sociopathic behavior and encouraging its recurrence is lunacy.

 

[Middleground]

I can live with the conditions that the editorial proposes as a starting point in negotiations and I suspect Trump could also. After all, he has constantly asked for negotiations. However, I haven't seen any indication that either Pelosi or Schumer care about the Dreamers all that much nor any indication from them that they even want to negotiate.

It takes two to tango and one of the dance partners prefers to get out of town.

Trump is holding the govt. hostage -- Pelosi and Schumer are not. They have been willing to negotiate from the very beginning. Congress tried to pass a bill to get the government up and running again as the negotiations take place but Trump is not interested. He wants what he wants and he does not give one iota of a **** about anyone/anything else.

 

[nota bene]

The president is attempting to starve and otherwise inflict suffering on hundreds of thousands of American citizens (soon to be tens of millions if this continues another week or two and impacts SNAP funding) to further his agenda. Rewarding that sort of sociopathic behavior and encouraging its recurrence is lunacy.

Ah, I see.