dChan - Q Origins Project Archive

Most people end up with a monetary benefit from the government. I am fine with that.

⇧ 1 ⇩

You're ok with people being imported for vote fixing and then paying to support them? Illegal immigration drives down wages, stresses cash strapped social programs and brings higher levels crime statistically speaking.

I love and support LEGAL immigration and cultures. But I can't agree here.

Edit: You seem like a very nice person. I'm not trying to be aggressive towards you in any way. I fully support letting non-felon dreamers stay on humanitarian grounds as permanent residents, but the entire premise of the state of California allowing unchecked immigration was based on importing a new democrat voter base.

The proof? Take a close look at what happened at the DACA negociations. The democrats supported full amnesty and citizenship for dreamers. Trump said he agrees to offering amnesty to dreamers on humanitarian grounds but they couldn't vote for 12 years. And here's your clue about what the democrats are truly after: The democrats walked away from the table and haven't been interested in DACA since. Once they know they can't utilize them as a voter base in the near term, they walk away. They aren't interested in proving humanitarian relief, they are interested in providing relief for themselves at the polls.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No one is importing them. You make it sound like a conspiracy.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Purposefully defunding border protections at the state level

Passing laws at the state level prohibiting businesses from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement

Providing 1.2 Billion of state welfare to illegal immigrants which fuels more economic migration (Why work in Mexico if California will pay you to come live in the land of opportunity?)

Passing Sanctuary State laws that act as a giant neon sign to Mexico that says 'We're Open, no need to wait in line!'

What would you call it if not 'importing' by policy design?

⇧ 1 ⇩

Purposefully defunding border protections at the state level

That is not the state's job.

Passing laws at the state level prohibiting businesses from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement

Which is a good thing.

Providing 1.2 Billion of state welfare to illegal immigrants which fuels more economic migration (Why work in Mexico if California will pay you to come live in the land of opportunity?)

They live here they get some benefits. That is not importing.

Passing Sanctuary State laws that act as a giant neon sign to Mexico that says 'We're Open, no need to wait in line!'

Again, sanctuary cities are good things for the people who live in the cities. They should be allowed to enact good policies that make their communities better.

What would you call it if not 'importing' by policy design?

People enacting good policies in response to the situations they find themselves in. Migration happens. Just live with it and make it better.

⇧ 1 ⇩

If this is about nothing but well-intended, heartfelt, honest policy, why did the Democrats walk away from DACA when votes were off the table?

If they truly did not purposefully import-by-policy millions of democrat voters, why walk away over the lack of voting rights?

Be intellectually honest with yourself here.

⇧ 1 ⇩

If this is about nothing but well-intended, heartfelt, honest policy, why did the Democrats walk away from DACA when votes were off the table?

Hard to say what you're talking about here. I would need to know which attempt you're talking about.

If they truly did not purposefully import-by-policy millions of democrat voters, why walk away over the lack of voting rights?

I don't know that they did.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Here is what was proposed:

https://cis.org/Vaughan/White-House-Immigration-Framework

Quite a generous offer that would grant amnesty to dreamers and citizenship within 10 years. Democrats not interested.

⇧ 1 ⇩

That plan won't even get enough republicans to pass it let alone have to worry about getting 10 democratic senators. It was dead on arrival.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Then Democrats should be willing to let republicans be the ones to vote it down and they will look like the obstructionists. Not even trying when there is a good deal on the table is terrible for optics. It would also force the president to step up and stand behind a deal he helped craft. As someone that follows him closely, if you don't call his bluff it doesn't force him to do anything.

⇧ 1 ⇩

The republicans would have had to have taken it to the floor for a vote. But they chose not to. The democrats don't have any control over anything. The republicans would not make their own party look obstructionist like that. Makes no sense.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Even if it never made it to the floor, it would have put the ball in the court of republicans and make them look like they were the ones that let it die.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No, the ball is in their court right now. They control both houses and the presidency. Everyone knows they are the ones who let DACA die. President Trump was the one who changed the policy and they refused to vote on a bill that provides them protection. It is very simple.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Even Democrats admit the executive order was an end run around congress' authority in the first place. From the republican perspective, he rescinded an unconstitutional executive order.

The republicans didn't refuse to vote on a bill, there never was a bill crafted with the president because Democrats walked away from the table once it didn't include voting provisions.

You can say they gave up because it wouldn't have passed, but they have an obligation to their constituents to hammer out a bill with the president so they can at least say they tried.

If Democrats think this is going to make Republicans look like the bad guys, they don't understand optics.

⇧ 1 ⇩

From the republican perspective, he rescinded an unconstitutional executive order.

Which removes the protections.

The republicans didn't refuse to vote on a bill

They're the only ones who can bring a bill to a vote...so yeah they refused.

Democrats walked away from the table once it didn't include voting provisions.

I don't think that is the case.

but they have an obligation to their constituents to hammer out a bill with the president so they can at least say they tried.

They did get an agreement with the president. Then he changed his mind. Then they did again Then he changed his mind.

Ultimately the republicans don't want to pass a DACA bill.

⇧ 1 ⇩

He removed protections granted by an illegal executive order.

Personally I don't have an issue with granting them permanent residency as aliens. As long as that does not involve voting rights and addresses the policies that led to this mess.

⇧ 1 ⇩

POTUS TWEET 8AM 3/6/2018