You have a sense of humor and enjoy laughter without being offended? You cannot possibly be liberal. I knew FC was right all along about you!
Easy there pal, lets change that to "improving my day". Take your Anglo-centric speech down the road. It is very triggering to the snowflakes here.
sophistry at is finest from piezoe your party calls those who oppose illegal immigration, racists. Talk about failing to see nuance. 1. Democrats frequently conflate illegal alien, legal immigration, human rights and racism. Make no mistake many if not the vast majority of democrats in congress are pro illegal immigration. 2. pro choice is pro abortion. If you are not against abortions you are pro abortion. there is no other way to look at it. if you say a women's right to choose you are saying you are for a pregnant women's right to kill her baby with the help of a doctor. She may choose not to kill her baby but you are for her right to kill her baby. that means you are for abortion rights. you are for legal abortion. you are pro abortion.
I don't understand why no one is discussing repatriation. The illegals need to be repatriated to their homeland. They are not Americans. Their home countries should WANT them returned.
Superb example of " individuals ... who [have] formed hardened positions without ever having examined the complexities of difficult issues; without ever having recognized the nuances attendant different positions." Thank you so much, as I was not able to think of such a perfect example...
when wrong piezoe frequently combines rhetorical devices with specious argumentation with an absence of any support for his position. (hence I call him the one post deep lefty. ) spe·cious ˈspēSHəs/ adjective superficially plausible, but actually wrong. "a specious argument" misleading in appearance, especially misleadingly attractive. "the music trade gives Golden Oldies a specious appearance of novelty" synonyms: misleading, deceptive, false, fallacious, unsound, spurious, casuistic, sophistic "specious reasoning"
Durbin-Graham Is the Problem, Not the Solution By RICH LOWRY January 24, 2018 After the experience of the past two weeks, it’s not White House adviser Stephen Miller and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton who should be expelled from immigration negotiations, but Dick Durbin and Lindsey Graham. The Illinois Democrat and South Carolina Republican teamed up for a comically inadequate immigration proposal that prompted President Donald Trump’s “shithole” blowup and then Chuck Schumer’s shutdown overreach. The Durbin-Graham offer was advertised as a bipartisan compromise, which it was — among a group of six Republican and Democratic senators who broadly agree on immigration. Only in Washington would this be hailed as a major breakthrough and the statesman-like way forward. To his credit, Graham long ago concluded that Trump isn’t going anywhere and it makes sense to try to have more influence over him, rather than less. His mistake was attempting to assimilate Trump into an elite consensus on immigration that the president ran straight into the teeth of, and won. The potential scale of the Durbin-Graham proposal isn’t appreciated. The Migration Policy Institute estimated the population that would meet the minimum threshold for age at arrival and length of residence under the 2017 Graham-Durbin DREAM Act as 3.2 million, with the bill’s education criteria winnowing the population to 2.1 million. The details of the latest Durbin-Graham proposal are sketchy. The number of Dreamers eligible would depend on the exact parameters, but the number could easily be more than 2 million. On top of this, Durbin-Graham wants to give DACA-style work permits to the parents of Dreamers. Not every Dreamer is going to have two parents in the country, but this provision could easily double the number of people getting a de facto amnesty, putting the total figure at 4 million to 5 million. This is bigger than the 1986 amnesty that initially covered 2.7 million people and at least half the proposed Gang of 8 amnesty for an estimated 8 million. In exchange, on the White House’s priorities, Durbin-Graham offered no meaningful changes on chain migration, a repurposing rather than a real end to the visa lottery and a pittance at the border. If Trump had signed on to this, he might as well have declared everything he said about immigration in the campaign null and void. The question in the weeks ahead is whether the Trump presidency truly represents a breakthrough in immigration policy or not. It would be a travesty if after defeating the rest of the GOP field in part on the strength of immigration — after indeed, talking of Mexican rapists, a deportation force, a Muslim ban and all the rest of it — he signed on to the worst amnesty deal since 1986. The basic, problematic physics of immigration deal-making remains unchanged: Illegal immigrants receive some sort of legal status immediately, while any new enforcement, whether a wall or other systems (say, E-Verify for employers), inevitably phases in over time. Immigration hawks are rightfully mindful of this disparity given the long history of broken promises on enforcement. The worry is especially stark with Trump’s wall. It would be a massive government infrastructure project, with all the potential for delays and cost overruns that implies. Even if every elected official in Washington and every bureaucrat were devoted to the project (and they wouldn’t be), building anything substantial would take a long time. Everyone wanted to complete The Big Dig in Boston; it still took years longer and countless billions more than originally projected. This is why the shrewd play for the Democrats is to complain and resist, and then at the end make a theatrical concession on the wall. In fact, this is exactly what Schumer did prior to the government shutdown. Giving Trump something on the wall would be painful, since it would become a major bragging point appropriate for chest-beating riffs at campaign rallies, but Democrats could work to undo whatever concessions they made if they retake Congress or the or the White House. For Trump’s part, the opposite is true. He’d be smart to insist on his wall above all else, and then at the end, against his better instincts, accept other priorities. The wall won’t be a game-changer at the border, where security has already become more robust; in fact, absent more resources for immigration authorities and tightened rules around asylum and the influx of migrants arriving from Central America, it might not make much of a difference. That’s why Trump should focus on getting those changes, as well as an end of the visa lottery and a curtailment of chain migration. These would be meaningful and enduring, and represent the first real tightening of legal immigration in decades. It would signal a change of direction worthy of his election campaign, even without bricks and mortar. The likeliest outcome is no DACA deal and a continued stalemate. But if there is going to be a Senate agreement acceptable to immigration hawks and doves alike, it will go through the center-right, i.e., the Republican caucus and the Democratic moderates who undermined Schumer’s shutdown gambit. It makes as much sense for the White House to try to get a deal on immigration via Durbin and Schumer as it would have for President Barack Obama to try to work out spending priorities via Ted Cruz and Mike Lee. Over the past 2½ years, Trump blasted away at the lazy conventional wisdom on immigration with a blunderbuss; getting something to show for it legislatively will now require some deftness and guile. https://www.politico.com/magazine/s...graham-is-the-problem-not-the-solution-216527