Trump wants border wall, other restrictions to be paired with DACA

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-daca-wall_us_59dacda4e4b072637c44fbb2?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

The only scenario where I could see myself supporting this deal is if the wall funding is paired with other measures such that the deficit is not increased.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Dealing with Trump is a Fool's Mate. He can't be trusted, can't deliver, and dealing with him covers you in his filth.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This should be good for Donny to play with.

[Famous Mortimer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-daca-wall_us_59dacda4e4b072637c44fbb2?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

The only scenario where I could see myself supporting this deal is if the wall funding is paired with other measures such that the deficit is not increased.

The deficit is such a stupid, Moderate Hero reason to oppose the wall. If you ever consider backing the wall, people are going to consider you racist. So why be wishy washy about it? And if you actually care about the deficit, you would want to stop the constant flow of impoverished people who need welfare to exist.

[JA]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-daca-wall_us_59dacda4e4b072637c44fbb2?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

The only scenario where I could see myself supporting this deal is if the wall funding is paired with other measures such that the deficit is not increased.

The deficit is such a stupid, Moderate Hero reason to oppose the wall. If you ever consider backing the wall, people are going to consider you racist. So why be wishy washy about it? And if you actually care about the deficit, you would want to stop the constant flow of impoverished people who need welfare to exist.

You truly are a predictably awful person, aren’t you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[136or142]

This was published on October 7 and seems to be confirmed by this new report

Congressional leaders fear President Trump’s staff are exploiting the president’s busy schedule to push their own agenda and undermine his pledge to protect Dreamers,” McClatchy reports.

“According to four political operatives working closely with Republicans, leaders in both the House and Senate characterized some of the White House’s demands, which have yet to go public, as ‘poison pills,’ saying they are impossible to achieve and that the White House staffers’ intent is to scuttle the deal for political gain.”

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/white-house/article177613721.html

[Sir Mohamed]

But but… our great leader repeatedly told me that Mexico is paying for the wall 

I all seriousness: This isn't going to happen, because there are enough fiscal hawks and wall skeptics in the establishment that the narrow GOP majority won't be enough to pass such a spending bill. Let alone Trump's gross incompetence to deal with congress. Senators and congress(wo)men should tell Trump plain and simple: Mr. President, you told us that Mexico is paying for the wall. Until they don't agree to fund the project, we won't approve any spending for your wall. It's your problem. You either deliver on the promise as you said, or you're exposed as a liar (one more time). Then I'd like to see what the genius dealmaker will do other than tweeting garbage.

[Brittain33]

Who was The Last Guy Trump Talked To who caused this u-turn? Miller, Cotton, or both?

[Inmate Trump]

Dealing with Trump is a Fool's Mate. He can't be trusted, can't deliver, and dealing with him covers you in his filth.

So does voting for him. Trump voters are not all racists and sexists but they are okay with racism and sexism.

[Devout Centrist]

Tell Donny to take a hike, he’s out of his element.

[Famous Mortimer]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-daca-wall_us_59dacda4e4b072637c44fbb2?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

The only scenario where I could see myself supporting this deal is if the wall funding is paired with other measures such that the deficit is not increased.

The deficit is such a stupid, Moderate Hero reason to oppose the wall. If you ever consider backing the wall, people are going to consider you racist. So why be wishy washy about it? And if you actually care about the deficit, you would want to stop the constant flow of impoverished people who need welfare to exist.

You truly are a predictably awful person, aren’t you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't pretend as if that law makes open borders logical. You oppose that law and would still support open borders even if it was overturned.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The simple problem here is that Democrats want to preserve the status quo on immigration. Cyclical amnesty and the key to that is never actually getting the enforcement or blocking it until a new illegal population is built up so you can cry foul and claim you cannot enforce until the system is "reformed" and those here now are legalized. Rinse, Wash, Repeat!

Never before was their such a divide on the immigration issue with Hillary going so far as to pledge to end all deportations (effectively declaring open borders) while Trump ran on a wall. If the Democrats want to hang their heads on the policy of open borders and refuse to compromise at all on enforcement, then they better hope they can pull off a sunbelt strategy, because there is no way they will regain the rust belt with that approach.

Even Obama paid lip service to the standard lie of "enforcement" in comprehensive reform, deported millions of illegals and called for a crack down on employers who hire illegals.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-daca-wall_us_59dacda4e4b072637c44fbb2?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

The only scenario where I could see myself supporting this deal is if the wall funding is paired with other measures such that the deficit is not increased.

The deficit is such a stupid, Moderate Hero reason to oppose the wall. If you ever consider backing the wall, people are going to consider you racist. So why be wishy washy about it? And if you actually care about the deficit, you would want to stop the constant flow of impoverished people who need welfare to exist.

You truly are a predictably awful person, aren’t you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't pretend as if that law makes open borders logical. You oppose that law and would still support open borders even if it was overturned.

That has nothing to do with it. For a supposed hard-headed realist you're not very good at rational argumentation.

[JA]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-daca-wall_us_59dacda4e4b072637c44fbb2?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009

The only scenario where I could see myself supporting this deal is if the wall funding is paired with other measures such that the deficit is not increased.

The deficit is such a stupid, Moderate Hero reason to oppose the wall. If you ever consider backing the wall, people are going to consider you racist. So why be wishy washy about it? And if you actually care about the deficit, you would want to stop the constant flow of impoverished people who need welfare to exist.

You truly are a predictably awful person, aren’t you?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Don't pretend as if that law makes open borders logical. You oppose that law and would still support open borders even if it was overturned.

Whether or not that's what I believe is irrelevant. You clearly stated that "if you actually care about the deficit, you would want to stop the constant flow of impoverished people who need welfare to exist," which implies that undocumented immigrants negatively affect America's deficit because undocumented immigrants are recipients of welfare benefits. As demonstrated by the PolitiFact link, that is extremely inaccurate and an easily disproven lie. Rather than admit that you were either ignorant or lying, you deflect by ignoring that and insisting I'd still support "open borders" even if that wasn't the law. Don't try to weasel out of this; you're a proven liar or simply ignorant and can't even own up to it. Pathetic.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

The simple problem here is that Democrats want to preserve the status quo on immigration. Cyclical amnesty and the key to that is never actually getting the enforcement or blocking it until a new illegal population is built up so you can cry foul and claim you cannot enforce until the system is "reformed" and those here now are legalized. Rinse, Wash, Repeat!

Never before was their such a divide on the immigration issue with Hillary going so far as to pledge to end all deportations (effectively declaring open borders) while Trump ran on a wall. If the Democrats want to hang their heads on the policy of open borders and refuse to compromise at all on enforcement, then they better hope they can pull off a sunbelt strategy, because there is no way they will regain the rust belt with that approach.

Even Obama paid lip service to the standard lie of "enforcement" in comprehensive reform, deported millions of illegals and called for a crack down on employers who hire illegals.

Our nation desperately needs an honest conversation on immigration. And that's not something we have gotten from either party in a long time.

We need immigration and immigrant labor. Or we need to reform our entire economy and society. No one wants to admit that.

Besides being used as a political flail, our de facto current policy is to create an abused underclass of workers who are not protected by labor or other laws. That has to stop. It's bad for working Americans and it's evil.

Anyone who works in this country needs to have the full protection of the law. And the pretending walls and securing the border will have any effect on illegal immigration needs to stop. We need to admit we're going to have a lot of immigration and help (not force) immigrants assimilate. And we need to lose the rabid xenophobia.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

The simple problem here is that Democrats want to preserve the status quo on immigration. Cyclical amnesty and the key to that is never actually getting the enforcement or blocking it until a new illegal population is built up so you can cry foul and claim you cannot enforce until the system is "reformed" and those here now are legalized. Rinse, Wash, Repeat!

Never before was their such a divide on the immigration issue with Hillary going so far as to pledge to end all deportations (effectively declaring open borders) while Trump ran on a wall. If the Democrats want to hang their heads on the policy of open borders and refuse to compromise at all on enforcement, then they better hope they can pull off a sunbelt strategy, because there is no way they will regain the rust belt with that approach.

Even Obama paid lip service to the standard lie of "enforcement" in comprehensive reform, deported millions of illegals and called for a crack down on employers who hire illegals.

And the sad thing is we know what a real compromise bill looks like: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013

If Senators and Representatives on both sides would just shut up and pass that bill, this crisis would be over.

[Fuzzy Bear]

The simple problem here is that Democrats want to preserve the status quo on immigration. Cyclical amnesty and the key to that is never actually getting the enforcement or blocking it until a new illegal population is built up so you can cry foul and claim you cannot enforce until the system is "reformed" and those here now are legalized. Rinse, Wash, Repeat!

Never before was their such a divide on the immigration issue with Hillary going so far as to pledge to end all deportations (effectively declaring open borders) while Trump ran on a wall. If the Democrats want to hang their heads on the policy of open borders and refuse to compromise at all on enforcement, then they better hope they can pull off a sunbelt strategy, because there is no way they will regain the rust belt with that approach.

Even Obama paid lip service to the standard lie of "enforcement" in comprehensive reform, deported millions of illegals and called for a crack down on employers who hire illegals.

This.

There is something fundamentally wrong with any politician agreeing to undermine the rule of law by deliberately not enforcing a law.  It undermines the rule of law, and when this becomes the practice in multiple areas, folks become OK with it.  When folks become OK with it, we become like nations that lack the Rule of Law as a bedrock, and we lose what makes us a Good and Special nation.

I would like to see the "Dreamers" have their situations resolved to where they can stay here, provided that they are not lawbreakers and that they are truly here through no fault of their own.  I'm not unalterably opposed to some form of amnesty for folks who have been here.  But I also don't want these things to be the incentive for others to crash the border and live here illegally, waiting for circumstances to change and a new wave of amnesties to be granted.  I don't believe we need more immigration, and we should only allow that immigration that benefits America.  As other nations operate on this principle, I have difficulty seeing what is wrong with it.

[Frodo]

That's that, then.  I never thought much about our chances of actually striking a compromise with this man-child.  Give them an inch, and they will demand ten miles.  

For now on, no more dealings with this administration.  On any issue. 

[Val]

He won't give  a path to citizenship for DACA members... but demands all of these conditions for what? Not deporting them?