Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've already explained several times, the bullet point you left out de-armed ICE and was effectively an amnesty for all 11-15 million illegals. Yes, it was for the Wall specifically and even had criteria for annual disbursements.
Unless I missed it here ... that discussion was pretty much on the other sticky. There I said I agreed with you for I didn't understand the inclusion of that ^^^ into the Wall-DACA deal proposal. It was puzzling.
After reflection ... this was not a Democratic proposal but one reached by a fairly large bi-partisan group. I'm now guessing that this was an Hail-Mary attempt to reach a larger compromise that went beyond the DACA kids and what to do with the 11-15 million illegals. And it would have been far from an amnesty. THAT was the compromise.
Unless I missed it here ... that discussion was pretty much on the other sticky. There I said I agreed with you for I didn't understand the inclusion of that ^^^ into the Wall-DACA deal proposal. It was puzzling.
After reflection ... this was not a Democratic proposal but one reached by a fairly large bi-partisan group. I'm now guessing that this was an Hail-Mary attempt to reach a larger compromise that went beyond the DACA kids and what to do with the 11-15 million illegals. And it would have been far from an amnesty. THAT was the compromise.
I'm not sure how you have determined this provision was "bi-partisan" but in no way was it a term pushed for by Republicans. In fact, the Grassley bill was almost a copy of the Common Sense bill except for this provision, and it retained the Republican votes and lost all of the Dem votes. In other words, take away this provision and the Republicans were still for the deal but all of the Dems were now against the deal. This should be prima facie evidence that it was a Democratic proposal.
I'm not sure how you have determined this provision was "bi-partisan" but in no way was it a term pushed for by Republicans. In fact, the Grassley bill was almost a copy of the Common Sense bill except for this provision, and it retained the Republican votes and lost all of the Dem votes. In other words, take away this provision and the Republicans were still for the deal but all of the Dems were now against the deal. This should be prima facie evidence that it was a Democratic proposal.
I could go find the link - but it was the other thread. The "Common Sense" bill was sponsored by Susan Collins with numerous other Republicans co-sponsoring, mainly (I guess) the 8 or so who voted for it even though Trump said he would veto. Let me look ... EDITED TO ADD:
The proposal, co-sponsored by Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) and Sen. Angus King (I-ME), along with a bunch of other senators in the unofficial “Common Sense Coalition,” is the product of bipartisan talks that began after January’s government shutdown. It’s a fairly dovish bill. The White House hates it; it’s already issued a statement threatening a veto. Surprisingly, some progressive groups strongly dislike it, too. ...
The bill was introduced with eight Republican co-sponsors — meaning that it would need only three more Republican votes to hit the 60-vote threshold if all Democrats supported it.
Susan Collins' photo was at the beginning, so I'm assuming she was one of the 8 sponsoring Republicans. As we now know, 3 Democrats did NOT support it along with all Republicans except, I guess, the sponsors. So it failed.
Last edited by EveryLady; 01-13-2019 at 06:15 PM..
I could go find the link - but it was the other thread. The "Common Sense" bill was sponsored by Susan Collins with numerous other Republicans co-sponsoring, mainly (I guess) the 8 or so who voted for it even though Trump said he would veto. Let me look ... EDITED TO ADD:
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The ICE restrictions may be a term that some Republicans agreed to accept in order to make a deal but it was not a term the Republicans were pushing for. It was a term that Democrats were insisting on. Take away that term and you essentially have the Grassley bill. Without that term, Collins and other Republicans were still behind the deal but all the Dems were not.
I'm not sure how you have determined this provision was "bi-partisan" but in no way was it a term pushed for by Republicans. In fact, the Grassley bill was almost a copy of the Common Sense bill except for this provision, and it retained the Republican votes and lost all of the Dem votes. In other words, take away this provision and the Republicans were still for the deal but all of the Dems were now against the deal. This should be prima facie evidence that it was a Democratic proposal.
Here finally - I found the link that summarized the four bills. The Grassley bill was a major nonstarter for Democrats. It ALSO would have restricted family immigration and eliminated the lottery program. Remember how much of a furor there was about that at the time.
Actually, there were four votes on one bill. The Republicans scheduled the Grassley proposal for the last vote hoping that some Democrats might jump ship to get DACA after the third proposal failed ... but that did not happen.
Recalling more now ... and then Trump tried to spin it as the Democrats abandoning the DACA kids. The kicker was NOT the wall (Dems voted for the third proposal) but going after legal immigration to that extent.
The bipartisan proposal (this is just my surmise) ... left the long-standing illegals as illegal (with whatever that entails - no voting rights, no path to citizenship, reduced access to means-tested programs, no right to bring in family members) but increased their comfort level that they would not be deported IF they continue to commit no crimes. That would have been the reason for codifying the provision that ICE enforcement would be focused on new illegals and criminals. So a new Administration couldn't withdraw it - without legislation. Anyhow ... that's my guess.
Did this "muddy" the proposal? How would a straight DACA-Wall deal have worked out? No idea.
Last edited by EveryLady; 01-13-2019 at 06:43 PM..
If hypothetically Mexico wrote out a check paying for it, the same people here complaining will still be complaining as they don't want a Trump win - you do know in your heart of hearts that you'll never admit what you wrote is BS only because (this goes for a great majority in this part of the forum) Hillary or Bernie didn't win and you hate Trump. We give billions upon billions each year to countries, but for us = no good to the SJW's, Liberals, Democrats and other Anti-Americans including most of the MSM and also right here in CD political forum land.
Have a great rest of the day!
If Mexico funds it up front I don't have a problem with it.
"unbelievable vehicles" out of random items they picked up off the ground while WALKING 2,000 miles through the desert....they could revolutionize the American automobile industry!
Haven't read much of this thread and I am sure someone ese also said it is NOT Trump's gov't shutdown.
It is shumer's and pelosi's because they REFUSE to sit down and negotiate.
Wasn't it just a few days ago when Trump walked out of the room when Schumer and Pelosi attempted to do just that?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
