[Higgs Bosun]

I think this deserves its own thread now that we basically know for a fact shit is coming to a head and something or other is going to pass by March when the grace period for eligible illegals expires.

Personally, I think Trump should have gotten rid of DACA on Day 1 as he promised during the campaign, but it is what it is. From where we stand today, I believe there are only 2 possible outcomes that I could support going forward:

1)No deal is reached and DACA goes the way of an unpleasant dream (heh) you're happy to wake up from. The DACA illegals are subsumed into the larger pool of illegals to which they belong, hopefully to eventually be deported or leave of their own volition but certainly never to get the vote.

2)We get a compromise bill in which the electoral and demographic damage resulting from legalization of DACA illegals is more than offset by advantageous changes to the immigration status-quo elsewhere in the system. I find the likelihood of this happening to be minimal for the very simple reason that the democrats would never agree to a deal that ends up disadvantaging them in the long term. Nevertheless, here is what I think the parameters of such a deal would have to be:

1. The amnesty is restricted to the ~700,000 illegals already enrolled in the program. In other words, it's an amnesty for a currently existing list of names, not a broad category of people whose number will be ever expanding as more illegals who fit the criteria cross the border.

2. There is no pathway to citizenship. Or realistically, the demographic war is already lost, so I'd settle for a minimum waiting period of 15 years, as by that point another 700k will make no difference to the third world takeover of American electoral politics.

3. The amnestied illegals cannot sponsor any relatives for residency or even visas to the United States.

Note: thus far I have listed the criteria that seek to minimize the damage to our side, but even if 1-3 are fully agreed to, this still represents a 700,000 amnesty gift for the left. None of this stuff is asking the left for concessions: it is literally merely circumscribing the concessions we will give the left by granting amnesty to illegals who by law should be deported. Below are criteria that have to be implemented to offset the damage and make the whole thing worth it for our side:

4. A neutering of the ridiculously overpowered chain migration system. I don't have time to elucidate a bullet by bullet proposal, but the changes should cut the annual flow of "family reunification" by at least half.

5. Mandatory E-verify.

Note: 1-5 have to be part of the deal. If they're not, we're getting sold a lemon, regardless of what else may or may not be part of a cucked-out deal. Here are some distractors that might look good on the surface, but will still end up being garbage if included instead of 1-5:

6.Wall funding or even worse, vague language about "border security." Sad to say, but at this point the wall is a red herring. If Trump went balls-deep on the Wall on day 1, then maybe just maybe we could have had a wall built before enough foxes got into the hen-house to kill all the chickens. As it stands, even Trump's opening gambit funding proposal calls for a building time of 10 years. The wall is not going to make a material difference to the electoral dynamics, certainly not by enough to offset giving 700,000+ illegals already here the vote. Illegals aren't all bad: they can't vote, and at any rate mandatory E-verify would do more to deter their intrusion than what is likely to be a rather porous wall that won't be complete till at best 10 years time. Do we really think we'll have a Republican controlled government post 2024 to oversee the Wall's completion, given demographic trends in Florida and Texas?

7) Ending the diversity lottery. Just do the math: it brings in 50,000 immigrants a year, and it takes years before any of them can vote. Legalizing >700k illegals is equivalent of >14 years of diversity visa inflows in one fell swoop. It will help the left seize power earlier, at which point they'll reinstitute and soup up all sorts of crazy immigration policies anyway.

Now, as far as my thoughts on the likely outcome of the negotiations? I want to be proved wrong, but sadly I think Trump and the republicans will fold like a cheap chair and give the left every substantive morsel the left requests in return for nothing more than crumbs and vague promises that can be included in post-betrayal rhetoric as smoke and mirrors. Trump has been cucked on DACA from the very beginning. Let's not forget that the only reason he "ended" the program was that the threat of lawsuit by conservative state AGs forced his hand. The noises he's been making recently aren't reassuring, either. Still I'm hoping 4-d chess makes a triumphant entrance and makes me look like a fool unworthy of licking Thomas Wictor's boots. We will see.

[zigZag]

Lets be real. Repubs gonna fold faster than superman on laundry day and They'll get a DACA bill and there will be Amnesty and there won't be much improvement in terms of immigration reform. What are people gonna go and vote democrat now because trump signs an amnesty bill? If you haven't realized it it's amnesty-lite vs full blown turbo amnesty.

Focus on you, this is still the best place to make money and live a good life and stop focusing on shit like this. Do your mental well being a huge favor.

[kbell]

What happens if he doesn't give the dreamers amnesty, but they can stay in US with no chain migration? With the talks of e-verify which hopefully will be implemented it might not be as bad as giving them the right too vote officially.

[godzilla]

Repubs need to get something with DACA now while they have the upper hand.

They also need to realize that neither Trump nor anyone else have the balls to uproot families and deport these people back home, so some kind of deal should be made.

The pendulum tends to swing back and forth in politics. Its only a matter of time these people are legals.

[8ball]

Quote:

Judge rules against Trump administration on rescinding DACA

Quote:

A federal judge in San Francisco on Tuesday barred the Trump administration from turning back the Obama-era DACA program, which shielded more than 700,000 people from deportation, Reuters reported, citing the judge’s ruling.

link

Now all the leverage gone. Trump would have been smart to wait to for this ruling before he made that pivot earlier today.

[MMX2010]

DACA members equal about 800,000 people and cannot possibly increase.

Quoting quick Google search on Legal Immigrants, "The United States admitted more legal immigrants from 1991 to 2000, between ten and eleven million, than in any previous decade. In the most recent decade, the ten million legal immigrants that settled in the U.S. represent an annual growth of only about 0.3% as the U.S. population grew from 249 million to 281 million."

Legal immigrants: 11 million divided by ten equals 1.1 million.


Quoting quick Google search on the RAISE Act, "The RAISE (Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment) Action would cut legal immigration by half, reducing the number of green cards from more than 1 million to about 500,000.[3] The bill would also remove pathways for siblings and adult children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to apply for permanent lawful residency status in the U.S., limiting the family path to spouses and minor children.[7] The bill would also impose a cap of 50,000 refugee admissions a year and would end the visa diversity lottery.[3]"

The RAISE Act would reduce the number of Legal Immigrants by approximately more than 500,000 people per year, for every year that it is enacted.

So the numerical consequence of getting DACA passed, but also getting the RAISE Act passed, looks like this.


Year one = +300,000 extra immigrants (all of whom, being DACA members, are people who are already here anyway).

Year two = Minus-200,000 immigrants.

Year three = Minus-700,000 immigrants.

Year four = Minus-1,200,000 immigrants.

Year five = Minus-1,700,000 immigrants.

Year six = Minus-2,200,000 immigrants.


I get that mathematical modeling isn't an exact science, but mathematical modeling gives better predictions than no mathematical modeling at all. So all this talk about "DACA is part of the demographic destruction of the United States" can go fuck itself, unless you've got a mathematical basis to support that argument.

[EndsExpect]

I have a good friend who is a Dreamer down in Texas. He is in life limbo. He was born and raised in the US and considers himself American above everything, but because his parents brought him across the border at 6 months of age, he is stuck without any status. This is the only country he has ever known. The kid goes to Catholic Church every Sunday and generally loves the USA. He isn't some Muslim Supremacist prick who plans to blow himself up for Allah and take as many Kafirs with him as possible.

So here is my personal opinion on this. Some 5,000 people a year die trying to sneak through the desert a wall would reduce this. Drug cartels smuggle deadly drugs into the US... a wall would reduce this. Coyotes rape and smuggle humans across the border every day... a wall would reduce this.

Let's see if Democrats are willing to sign for a wall and give Dreamers some status, because their voters lose nothing yet gain alot. Let's see where the heart of the Democratic party truly lies.

Also... I want to add that my friend has a sister about 13 months older who is a legit 8... maybe a 9. She is super catholic traditional virgin... why ship her back to Mexico? I know for fact that her and most of her friends have white guy fever.

[8ball]

(01-10-2018 03:06 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

The RAISE Act would reduce the number of Legal Immigrants by approximately more than 500,000 people per year, for every year that it is enacted.

This is what your cities will look like:

[MMX2010]

EndsExpect Wrote:

Let's see if Democrats are willing to sign for a wall and give Dreamers some status, because their voters lose nothing yet gain alot. Let's see where the heart of the Democratic party truly lies.

This is exactly right. The Democrats have talked up how important DACA is that they can't afford to lose it.

Some optimistic people believe we can ALSO get Voter ID Laws in exchange for DACA.

[Pancho]

They aren't going to deport the Dreamers. They already have jobs and businesses here and bought homes, many even married because of the status that Obama gave them.

Anybody who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

[MMX2010]

[url=https://twitter.com/bizzykimmi/status/950946677141078016][/url]

Ignore the Tweetstorm. Focus on the single tweet, instead.

In 2017, the number of DACA permits decreased from 1,100,000 to 670,000. That's a 50% decrease just because Trump became President.

Also, DACA allows these recipients to work, but it doesn't allow them to vote.

[godfather dust]

MMX the Democrats don't give a damn about the dreamers, only their vote. I don't see them agreeing to that.

[bgbusiness]

Going to come back to this thread. But I will add my opinions for now.

That's crazy that a "Dreamer" or DACA recipient would have so much credentials to work at any Fortune 500 big firms paying him 60k starting salary or possibly more, but can't work when he graduates or when he does get a job, he needs to stop working there in couple months. lol. Maybe they will see his status and not even hire him at all since he can't work for a long-time.

So that's on a micro level. On a macro-level, the holistic economy of United States are tanking will tank more.
All the illegal immigrants who were able to get a drivers license, social security card, and a working permit will lose all their rights/privileges. Most of them have got their degrees by now or in the process of getting a degree.
(The ones who were able to get into a college and have finished up first two year at least can continue to go college EVEN after their DACA is expired to my understanding of the situation.)

However, this makes some of go back to their home country. This only HURTS U.S. since they got the good education, but now they are working in a different country. In this case, our country is like a beta orbiter providing the hot girl with all the attention/validation and the girl is going for some chad to suck his cock. Basically US getting cucked and wasting resources.

Some will stay. They will try to get married to a citizen, hoping that they can get a green card within 6months. (That's super fast and the only way for DACA at this point. They can't even go join the Army such as MAVNI program)

Some will work illegally as they have done before DACA was created.
(Then US can't tax them and they also lose their money and all the potential that these young people have who can actually enhance the economy since many of them are qualified more than lazy Americans.)

TLDR: Getting rid of DACA is bad for U.S.'s economy...

[TigerMandingo]

What's so bad about highly skilled immigrants going back to their countries? The places they are from usually need them much more than the US does. Skilled immigration policies a la Canada and Australia are actually leaving the 2nd and 3rd world worse off than they were before, because of all the brain drain.

[bgbusiness]

(01-09-2018 10:52 PM)godzilla Wrote:  

The pendulum tends to swing back and forth in politics. Its only a matter of time these people are legals.

True on all levels. It's just a matter of time. This country is going to explode if they don't get this bubble of immigrants handled.

[C-Note]

(01-10-2018 10:33 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Also, DACA allows these recipients to work, but it doesn't allow them to vote.

I think what may make the Democrats go along with it is that they'll reason that once they have a Democratic president, they'll submit a new bill to give citizenship to the DACAs.

[El Chinito loco]

(01-10-2018 01:19 PM)bgbusiness Wrote:  

Going to come back to this thread. But I will add my opinions for now.

That's crazy that a "Dreamer" or DACA recipient would have so much credentials to work at any Fortune 500 big firms paying him 60k starting salary or possibly more, but can't work when he graduates or when he does get a job, he needs to stop working there in couple months. lol. Maybe they will see his status and not even hire him at all since he can't work for a long-time.

So that's on a micro level. On a macro-level, the holistic economy of United States are tanking will tank more.
All the illegal immigrants who were able to get a drivers license, social security card, and a working permit will lose all their rights/privileges. Most of them have got their degrees by now or in the process of getting a degree.

There's a lot of bullshit stats when it comes to who falls under the "dreamer" category. A lot of the sob stories are from children of illegals who were brought into the country at a young age and never naturalized. So they are culturally American but never officially naturalized. In some cases they were even born in the U.S. but the birth cert. was never filed properly for some reason.

Although the latter case is very rare and a "dreamer" could actually have a good case to establish citizenship in court if they have supporting evidence of their birth.

However in the vast majority of "dreamer" cases it's all bullshit. The level of education of people who fall into this category is mostly high school. They aren't potential doctors or engineers. They are usually Jose's kids down the block mowing the lawn who through some liberal definition shenanigans somehow fall under the "dreamer" category.

Don't fall for the sob stories most of these people need to go. This is something I agree 100% with the alt right on.

[Cobra]

(01-10-2018 10:04 AM)8ball Wrote:  

(01-10-2018 03:06 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

The RAISE Act would reduce the number of Legal Immigrants by approximately more than 500,000 people per year, for every year that it is enacted.

This is what your cities will look like:

Pretty distasteful post. These are sikhs, some of the most hard working and honorable people to come out of India. They are not muslims, FYI and generally along with many Indian migrants, bring in more value than they take. They are also a small minority, even in India, yet they get a lot of respect there and also in the US. Some additional world knowledge wouldn't hurt.

[ball dont lie]

Honestly Cobra, I don't want my city to look like India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. There are about 2 blillion people in those countries. Its their problem, not the USAs problem to deal with all those people. Their culture is nothing like that of the USA.

India can take 30 million ghetto blacks and the USA will take 30 million of the best Indians. That's a deal. Otherwise, GTFO.

[El Chinito loco]

(01-10-2018 09:16 PM)ball dont lie Wrote:  

Honestly Cobra, I don't want my city to look like India, Pakistan or Bangladesh. There are about 2 blillion people in those countries. Its their problem, not the USAs problem to deal with all those people. Their culture is nothing like that of the USA.

India can take 30 million ghetto blacks and the USA will take 30 million of the best Indians. That's a deal. Otherwise, GTFO.

This is why multiculturalism fails over time. Maintaining at least one dominant culture is of vital importance to the survival of any nation and its principles it was founded on. Otherwise things just become balkanized with these mini ethnic tribes all competing and screwing each other over.

Everyone promotes their own sub tribe to the detriment of the larger nation.

You can already see that happening in some cities where whites are no longer even in the picture but its mostly minorities screwing each other over. This tribalism simply expands and eventually consumes itself unless a clear dominant glue culture is around to hold things together. Guess what the dominant "glue" culture is in America?

This doesn't mean that other ethnicities can't theoretically assimilate over time but when large numbers flood in changing the culture then things go awry. This goes for Indians, Mexicans, Chinese, etc..

Immigration to the U.S. should be very strict because of this and other demographic concerns.

[8ball]

(01-10-2018 08:52 PM)Cobra Wrote:  

Pretty distasteful post. These are sikhs, some of the most hard working and honorable people to come out of India. They are not muslims, FYI and generally along with many Indian migrants, bring in more value than they take. They are also a small minority, even in India, yet they get a lot of respect there and also in the US. Some additional world knowledge wouldn't hurt.

I know what they are, i am from that city. The post was to illustrate the lie of the RAISE-ACT, if you do some research you will find either neutral or praise from MSM, even CNN said its a good start, thats usually a bad sign.

It will simply replace hispanics with south asians. Its the equivalent of quadrupling h1bs. Basically what Marco Rubio would have done first day in office.

[Pancho]

It basically comes down to this.

Who do you want your overlords to be?

Mexicans
Indians
Muslims
Chinese.

All the Raise Act does is shift immigration from Mexico to China and India.

[worldwidetraveler]

delete

[MMX2010]

ALL standard warnings about believing the Mainstream Media apply to this story. But this Politico article came out today.

Summary: President Trump's televised meeting with Democrats regarding DACA has created a massive divide in the Democratic party. Should the Democrats negotiate to protect their vulnerable moderates, or should they refuse to negotiate - which arguably threatens the future of the entire Democratic party?

Politico Wrote:

Paragraph one: Democratic leaders are facing a potential revolt within their ranks as they edge toward a deal with Republicans that would protect Dreamers from deportation but also include concessions to conservatives that many Democratic lawmakers say are unacceptable.

Paragraph three: But many Democrats, particularly in the House, are horrified that their leaders would even agree to discuss issues beyond legal status for Dreamers and limited measures to curb illegal immigration. The concerns span multiple factions of the Democratic conference, and, combined with opposition from Republican immigration hard-liners, they could put passage of a DACA deal at risk.

Paragraph five: "We’re willing to give a little when it comes to border security, but we’re not willing to give away the whole hog and farm,” said Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus who attended the meeting.

Paragraph seven: Several House liberals worry that Democratic senators, led by Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, will strike a bad deal and force them to swallow it.

Paragraph eight: The tensions couldn’t come at a worse time for Democrats. Liberals and members of the minority caucuses — particularly the CHC and the Congressional Black Caucus — are urging their leadership to stand firm and resist the push from Republicans and some Senate Democrats to negotiate on items outside the scope of Dreamers and border security.

Paragraph nine: But moderates and vulnerable members in competitive districts are hungry for a deal and willing to openly entertain the controversial changes. Not to mention that Republicans in the White House and in both chambers of Congress have agreed those were the parameters of the talks and have been negotiating accordingly.

[captain_shane]

(01-11-2018 09:37 AM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

ALL standard warnings about believing the Mainstream Media apply to this story. But this Politico article came out today.

Summary: President Trump's televised meeting with Democrats regarding DACA has created a massive divide in the Democratic party. Should the Democrats negotiate to protect their vulnerable moderates, or should they refuse to negotiate - which arguably threatens the future of the entire Democratic party?

Politico Wrote:

Paragraph one: Democratic leaders are facing a potential revolt within their ranks as they edge toward a deal with Republicans that would protect Dreamers from deportation but also include concessions to conservatives that many Democratic lawmakers say are unacceptable.

Paragraph three: But many Democrats, particularly in the House, are horrified that their leaders would even agree to discuss issues beyond legal status for Dreamers and limited measures to curb illegal immigration. The concerns span multiple factions of the Democratic conference, and, combined with opposition from Republican immigration hard-liners, they could put passage of a DACA deal at risk.

Paragraph five: "We’re willing to give a little when it comes to border security, but we’re not willing to give away the whole hog and farm,” said Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus who attended the meeting.

Paragraph seven: Several House liberals worry that Democratic senators, led by Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, will strike a bad deal and force them to swallow it.

Paragraph eight: The tensions couldn’t come at a worse time for Democrats. Liberals and members of the minority caucuses — particularly the CHC and the Congressional Black Caucus — are urging their leadership to stand firm and resist the push from Republicans and some Senate Democrats to negotiate on items outside the scope of Dreamers and border security.

Paragraph nine: But moderates and vulnerable members in competitive districts are hungry for a deal and willing to openly entertain the controversial changes. Not to mention that Republicans in the White House and in both chambers of Congress have agreed those were the parameters of the talks and have been negotiating accordingly.

Quote:

"We’re willing to give a little when it comes to border security, but we’re not willing to give away the whole hog and farm,” said Rep. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), a member of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus who attended the meeting.