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.
Some few years back, Texas didn't even keep track of the tax money used for services to illegals. IIRC it was a state rep from Houston or Carol 5 names who suggested the state do that. Harris county has been paying for illegals;ls giving birth since I was a kid.
I'm all for ending birthright citizenship, chain migration and all the rest. Especially tourist coming so their babies can be USA citizens. IMO, the Congress should have resolved all this many years ago.
At the same time we need to acknowledge that illegals have contributed to our culture and tax rolls, all the time they were building our homes and tending to our families. Green cards with no services, maybe? IDK, but many are good and productive residents.
Perhaps it is asking too much for ICE to make the distinction between productive and criminal people.
Another impediment I see is the fact that people no longer marry when having kids. It is so easy for one partner to keep their income just so in order to get services. The family may also have another member making a good salary, but family income cannot be found.
If Texas would license contractors it might be easier. As long as I can hire a roofer or painter and they take my check to my bank and get cash, there is no way to know who is making money. I'm told that is the custom with contractors. And I see it when the bank statement comes.
More about illegal immigration issues that Beto/Cruz
Texas is over 40% Hispanic and 12% black and quite a few Asians so the Dims could sway any of these people. Actually it's surprising that it's so Republican with its demographics.
It's mostly the urban areas that lean democrat, while the suburbs and smaller cities lean republican
The Senate had enough Republican votes to deny a sitting POTUS his lawful duty of selecting a Supreme Court justice. Literally making his term 3 years. That's the reason I will never again vote for a Republican in a National election..
The senate did nothing of the sort. The president, consistent with his constitutional authority, nominated Merick Garland to the SCOTUS. The nomination was then subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Many take issue with the Senate's refusal to consider the nominee, but inherent in the right to advise and consent is the right to refuse advice and consent. As the constitution does not state how such a process takes place, it is up to the Senate to determine that. And that's exactly what the Senate GOP leadership did.
Still, that has nothing to do with the situation at hand. The fact is that it takes 60 votes to move significant legislation through the Senate today.
It's mostly the urban areas that lean democrat, while the suburbs and smaller cities lean republican
Also, there’s a pretty big difference between the demographics of the total pop of voters and eligible voters. Those under voting age are disproportionately minority.
The senate did nothing of the sort. The president, consistent with his constitutional authority, nominated Merick Garland to the SCOTUS. The nomination was then subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. Many take issue with the Senate's refusal to consider the nominee, but inherent in the right to advise and consent is the right to refuse advice and consent. As the constitution does not state how such a process takes place, it is up to the Senate to determine that. And that's exactly what the Senate GOP leadership did.
Still, that has nothing to do with the situation at hand. The fact is that it takes 60 votes to move significant legislation through the Senate today.
The SENATE didn't refuse anything
Mitch McConnell in his role as majority leader of the Senate refused to start the advise and consent process
That is one man being a tyrant to protect his party and give GOP voters a reason to come to the polls
There are people who hated Trump but wanted a GOP president to fill the vacancy left because McConnell orchestrated it...
There was nothing LEGAL about it
The Constitution has no timeline for starting that process because the founding fathers never considered a Senate Majority leader would stonewall a nomination
Obama should have done a recess appointment of Garland and said suck it to McConnell and the GOP
But he didn't
And I fault him for that
He was afraid to pull the trigger and call McConnell's bluff or deal with a Supreme Court decision
Better that than having McConnell do what he did and lose the legitimate opportunity to make HIS appointment to the Supreme Court
McConnell knew that Garland was a legitimate choice, fully qualified to be considered as Justice
If the Senate could block the nomination then do it
But it would not have--it would have confirmed
Not to start the process and keep him out of consideration was the only way McConnell could block Obama and save it for a possible GOP president
If HRC had won McConnell would have tried the same thing but I doubt HRC would have allowed a recess appointment to escape her action...
Also, there’s a pretty big difference between the demographics of the total pop of voters and eligible voters. Those under voting age are disproportionately minority.
As long as they are legal citizens what does it matter their ethnicity?
Hawaii's voting pool is composed of mainly non-Anglo voters--in any age group
The GOP just doesn't like minority voters because the GOP agenda doesn't persuade minorities to vote their way in some states
In TX because of the anti-abortion social issue the GOP has staked out, minorities due to their Catholic heritage most of the time vote GOP--because their priests tell them to...
The SENATE didn't refuse anything
Mitch McConnell in his role as majority leader of the Senate refused to start the advise and consent process
That is one man being a tyrant to protect his party and give GOP voters a reason to come to the polls
There are people who hated Trump but wanted a GOP president to fill the vacancy left because McConnell orchestrated it...
There was nothing LEGAL about it
The Constitution has no timeline for starting that process because the founding fathers never considered a Senate Majority leader would stonewall a nomination
Obama should have done a recess appointment of Garland and said suck it to McConnell and the GOP
But he didn't
And I fault him for that
He was afraid to pull the trigger and call McConnell's bluff or deal with a Supreme Court decision
Better that than having McConnell do what he did and lose the legitimate opportunity to make HIS appointment to the Supreme Court
McConnell knew that Garland was a legitimate choice, fully qualified to be considered as Justice
If the Senate could block the nomination then do it
But it would not have--it would have confirmed
Not to start the process and keep him out of consideration was the only way McConnell could block Obama and save it for a possible GOP president
If HRC had won McConnell would have tried the same thing but I doubt HRC would have allowed a recess appointment to escape her action...
Sorry, you're wrong. That's exactly what the Senate did. That this refusal didn't take place in the form that you or Obama wanted doesn't change this. Note, the GOP could've forced a vote in the Senate over McConnell's objections; he is not this all powerful player that you're making him out to be. But, the bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of GOP Senators were on board with what McConnell wanted to do.
All perfectly legal.
The only recourse you and others have is political. To vote for different candidates for Senate.
Sorry, you're wrong. That's exactly what the Senate did. That this refusal didn't take place in the form that you or Obama wanted doesn't change this. Note, the GOP could've forced a vote in the Senate over McConnell's objections; he is not this all powerful player that you're making him out to be. But, the bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of GOP Senators were on board with what McConnell wanted to do.
All perfectly legal.
The only recourse you and others have is political. To vote for different candidates for Senate.
You make my point
--you give prime example of how the GOP "leadership" would have done nothing to help Obama or the next Democratic candidate for president vs a GOP candidate
The GOP decided--they might be a majority in the Senate but they are not a majority in the country
You know that, I know that, the GOP knows that--and the popular vote in the election proved it
The fact is that the GOP HAS a majority in the Senate because of gerrymandering and it has a POTUS in the WH because of that and the Electoral College
There have been multiple times when a president of one party nominated a SC candidate and the Senate was controlled by the opposite party--
I say multiple simply because of the two hundred years of history we have undergone
I haven't looked it up and don't remember seeing that point during the time McConnel stonewalled Obama
This was a desperate (but smart, I give McConnell that) effort to generate MORE GOP support for whomever their party came up with for the next election
I am sure he had no idea that Trump would be the candidate but there are many GOP voters who voted for Trump simply because of his ability to fill that SC bench seat
There are many voters whose primary reason to vote a conservative agenda boils down to judicial appointments...
McConnell and his "leadership" under the thumb of the Freedom Caucus stagnated compromise in the Senate and supported that same policy in the House under Ryan and Boemer
They NEVER had any thought after Obama's election into doing anything that would smooth his path or made it easier to elect Democrats--even if those compromises might have been better policy and better outcome for Americans in general...
Right now McConnell has a chokehold on the Senate in many ways--but his day will be over if elections aren't stopped under some gas lighting threat to democracy Trump comes up with to halt them...
As long as they are legal citizens what does it matter their ethnicity?
Hawaii's voting pool is composed of mainly non-Anglo voters--in any age group
The GOP just doesn't like minority voters because the GOP agenda doesn't persuade minorities to vote their way in some states In TX because of the anti-abortion social issue the GOP has staked out, minorities due to their Catholic heritage most of the time vote GOP--because their priests tell them to...
The GOP vote in Texas is overwhelming white. Hispanics in Texas may be slightly more Republican than they are in California or Colorado, but the primary way Hispanics in Texas assist Republicans is by not voting. As I indicated in my earlier post, the younger the population in Texas, the higher percentage of minority. Texas is a minority majority state now, but a lot of that percentage is in children or adults who do not vote. Even a former GOP state chairman has publically stated that Texas will eventually turn blue simply due to the weight of demographic numbers, but for that to happen anytime soon, minorities have to start voting in numbers in proportion to their population.
Last edited by Bureaucat; 08-13-2018 at 07:13 AM..
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.
