Banned 10% of Muslims. 10% of 1.8 billion people.
Visa program is 4% of legal citizens.
Visa program is 4% of legal citizens.
What are the chances...
- Thread starter wyomingosualum
- Start date
It’s certainly an indication about his attitudes on legal immigration. Additionally there are plenty of other proposals that you didn’t mention/ignored that reasonably lead someone to conclude he doesn’t want immigrants to come here and easily lead someone to believe he doesn’t have any interest in hugely pushing for legal immigration....which is where Harry started.
4% of 325 million = 13 million x 90 percent employment rate =
11.7 million jobs. That’s a lowball estimate too on employment, Harry.
11.7 million jobs. That’s a lowball estimate too on employment, Harry.
I didn’t say I don’t want to argue those examples. I said that those are examples of anti-immigration initiatives that could lead one to reasonably he is is anti-immigrant and certainly isn’t making a huge push for legal immigration, but okay....
1. There are refugees from those areas that aren’t “our enemies”. Trump started out with we need to vet them better to figure out which are which (I’m all for that) and ended up on let’s just ban them all.
2. We are talking about the legal definition of immigrant in this thread. We’re talking about Trump being anti-immigration generally. And making it harder for refugees to legally enter this country on a refugee status which could potentially lead to further status upgrades is an anti-immigration act.
3. It certainly made it harder to qualify, and indicates that we don’t want certain “types” of immigrants which is itself an anti-immigration sentiment and obviously a huge push for legal immigration (again....where HSH started).
I’m not convincing anybody of anything here. I’m not gonna change one person’s mind. I didn’t even argue definitively that Trump IS anti-immigration. I asserted that reasonable minds have support for drawing an opinion that he is based upon his actions and that it isn’t only left wing loony open borderers that might reasonably view him as such.
And he has taken an anti-immigration position with regard to those 4% of legal citizens and and those 180,000,000.
Not exactly a huge push for immigration is it?
How about you show me where and how he has actually made this huge push you were willing to compromise at.
“It may seem like a basic point: Adding immigrant workers means the economy is larger, with more people earning wages and buying goods and services. But that fact may come as a surprise to a lot of people, said Jennifer Hunt, an economist at Rutgers University. Many Americans assume that immigrants have zero effect on the economy, or think that immigrants subtract value from an economic pie of fixed size. In fact, immigrants make the pie bigger. According to a recent paper by economists Ryan Edwards of Mills College and Francesc Ortega of Queens College CUNY, even undocumented immigrants spur growth.
Using the paper’s methods, we calculated that deporting the estimated 11.3 million undocumented people in this country would be an almost $8 trillion hit to the economy over the next 14 years. Legalizing them could boost GDP by almost $2 trillion in that same time period.
Using the paper’s methods, we calculated that deporting the estimated 11.3 million undocumented people in this country would be an almost $8 trillion hit to the economy over the next 14 years. Legalizing them could boost GDP by almost $2 trillion in that same time period.
Hard to know. A wall probably requires less patrol and personnel than what you are describing. But really anything that works should be on the table and frankly would be a metaphoric wall.
Gridlock is good. Hence the run up in the market today.
I think he makes a yuge push into an immigrant every night.
I wanted progress on these two issues. We pissed away the opportunity to do something. Major failure.
4% of newly legal citizens per year.
42,000 people. (Avg 1,054,000 people per year 2010-2016)
These are tweaks to the system, not anti immigrant.
Did we forget his DACA compromise that included legal citizenry for 1.8 million people? In exchange? Money to secure the border.
I can’t quite remember where that crazy trump got that list of Muslim countries to ban. Help me out?
Melania is in a separate bedroom lol. She didn’t even live in DC while Baron was in school
Personally, I don't see how anyone can argue that he is anything but anti-immigrant. There is really no evidence to the contrary.
With that said, he may not really be anti-immigrant, but gets off on how his base responds to anti-immigrant rhetoric, so he is happy to keep it up. He is a narcissist who wants to be loved desperately. His supporters go crazy, and lose their minds, when he talks about a wall, a Muslim ban, the migrant caravan, etc.
With that said, he may not really be anti-immigrant, but gets off on how his base responds to anti-immigrant rhetoric, so he is happy to keep it up. He is a narcissist who wants to be loved desperately. His supporters go crazy, and lose their minds, when he talks about a wall, a Muslim ban, the migrant caravan, etc.
The list, I’m just talking about who identified those seven countries as potential problems.
I do not think Obama did what trump did. That’s not my argument.
I feel like I am losing track of what the actual issue is. However, if it is that Trump is perceived to not want legal immigrants, I'm still disagreeing with you.
He knows as well as most of us that the immigrant population has a positive effect on the economy. And, I think there are few things that he has higher on his priority list than a booming economy.
After that, I would argue that when it comes to things that he wants changed, he doesn't necessarily wait for the cooperation of congress. He could, quite easily station troops along the border, or take other measures without asking for approval if he really wanted to stop immigration.
This has always been a concern of mine.
Work visas? Reasonable pathway to citizenship?
Somehow we've got to get a handle on all of this together and stop playing political football with the issue.
Paraphrase of the discussion so far:
HSH: I will never understand why people refer to Trump as Anti-Immigrant, he’s Anti-Illegal immigration only.
Me: There are reasonable basis upon which reasonable people may view him as anti-immigration without being a looney left liberal. In other words, reasonable minds can disagree.
HSH: Can we compromise....do everything we can to stop and punish illegal immigration and have a huge push for legal immigration.
Me: I’m All for that, but I don’t see a huge push for legal immigration coming from MAGAers or from Trump.
Others: Trump is not anti-immigration....prove me wrong.
Me: Not interested in doing that because it’s something reasonable minds can disagree on.
And when he didn’t get that deal, boom...off to the Supreme Court trying to end it.
If you want to think I’m a leftist looney for believing that reasonable minds can disagree on whether or not Trump is anti-immigration, I’m good with that. It’s certainly consistent with your recent arguments that anybody that doesn’t support Trump 100% in this culture war we got going on is a leftist loon.
And you still haven’t given me any “huge push” for immigration amongst all these “tweaks”.
Simplistic, inaccurate whataboutism.
The list of states came from Obama.
Obama didn’t enact a blanket indefinite ban on refugees from them.
All for a “virtual” (more personnel and electronic surveillance) wall across the southern border, and a physical wall makes sense in some places. A physical wall across the entirety of the southern border, doesn’t.
Agree.
1. Funny...kudos.
2. You’re probably right, but I’m also probably not referring to Melania when I say that.
We don't think you are a lefty loon Jd....we know you are. But we love you anyways.
I know you’re kidding, but Imma get serious for a minute....
Binary thinking and the unwillingness to accept that reasonable minds can disagree which leads to tribal groupthink and the whole loony leftists/socialists vs Nazi/racists divide (where if you aren’t marching the “party line” you are automatically put on the the opposite side) is a huge problem in this country.
And it’s been seeping into this board for a good long time now.
Frustrates the hell out of me, but I love all (okay...most) of you mopes too much to quit ya.
I know you’re kidding, but Imma get serious for a minute....
Binary thinking and the unwillingness to accept that reasonable minds can disagree which leads to tribal groupthink and the whole loony leftists/socialists vs Nazi/racists divide (where if you aren’t marching the “party line” you are automatically put on the the opposite side) is a huge problem in this country.
And it’s been seeping into this board for a good long time now.
Frustrates the hell out of me, but I love all (okay...most) of you mopes too much to quit ya.
Ok, why does my applause GIFY work in the preview but not on the page?
When was the last meaningful, beneficial to the whole country, legislation passed in this country? Was it even this century?
There are pretty much always winners and losers in any legislation passed anywhere.
Obamacare was meaningful, and they didn’t have any trouble shoving that up our asses when they controlled both houses and the presidency. I don’t think that fits your “beneficial” criterion, though.
As JD points out, many Americans would disagree with your impression of that legislation.
Technically...I didn’t point that out or say that. I just said there are almost always winners and losers.
I don't think Obamacare is beneficial to anyone. Insurance costs are so high now it's ridiculous. I would rather not carry the insurance I have currently but I need some coverage in case my wife needs another surgery. Hell the deductible alone will just about put us under if anything major happens.
But off the top of my head the last legislation that I can think of may be the balanced budget during the Clinton years. Back when opposite sides actually talked and worked with each other to get things accomplished.
But off the top of my head the last legislation that I can think of may be the balanced budget during the Clinton years. Back when opposite sides actually talked and worked with each other to get things accomplished.
No I'm not wrong. My wife has preexisting conditions.
I went a year without insurance just to avoid the costs while my wife was insured. But now I have to carry something just in case something comes up and she needs another surgery.
When you have a family to look after and support with a wife that has half a pancreas and a tumor on the remaining half come talk to me.
I went a year without insurance just to avoid the costs while my wife was insured. But now I have to carry something just in case something comes up and she needs another surgery.
When you have a family to look after and support with a wife that has half a pancreas and a tumor on the remaining half come talk to me.
