PDA

View Full Version : Durbin and Graham Propose Dreamers Legislation



DGUtley
07-21-2017, 07:18 AM
When Obama unilaterally did this, I was adamantly against it. I was against it not b/c of the substance but b/c I thought that he lacked the constitutional authority to do so. I still do. However, I favor this legislation. It is a step in the right direction.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/20/sens-graham-durbin-introduce-bipartisan-dream-act.html

stjames1_53
07-21-2017, 07:20 AM
When Obama unilaterally did this, I was adamantly against it. I was against it not b/c of the substance but b/c I thought that he lacked the constitutional authority to do so. I still do. However, I favor this legislation. It is a step in the right direction.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/20/sens-graham-durbin-introduce-bipartisan-dream-act.html

as long as they go through the process, lawfully and legally.

MisterVeritis
07-21-2017, 07:50 AM
When Obama unilaterally did this, I was adamantly against it. I was against it not b/c of the substance but b/c I thought that he lacked the constitutional authority to do so. I still do. However, I favor this legislation. It is a step in the right direction.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/20/sens-graham-durbin-introduce-bipartisan-dream-act.html
Right. One million so-called dreamers will be made Americans. They can then bring their entire extended families to the US. One million becomes 20 million. If we really want to lose the nation this will do it.

DGUtley
07-21-2017, 07:51 AM
Right. One million so-called dreamers will be made Americans. They can then bring their entire extended families to the US. One million becomes 20 million. If we really want to lose the nation this will do it.

Then lobby against it. That's the process. That's why we have legislation. I didn't read where it said bring relatives over....

MisterVeritis
07-21-2017, 07:56 AM
Then lobby against it. That's the process. That's why we have legislation. I didn't read where it said bring relatives over....
The current immigration law allows citizens to bring in their entire extended families. This is back-door amnesty. It is intended to replace white middle class voters with brown poor people. This was Ted Kennedy's goal and the Democrat's dream. It guarantees they will hold power forever once the tipping point has been reached.

DGUtley
07-21-2017, 09:02 AM
The current immigration law allows citizens to bring in their entire extended families. This is back-door amnesty. It is intended to replace white middle class voters with brown poor people. This was Ted Kennedy's goal and the Democrat's dream. It guarantees they will hold power forever once the tipping point has been reached.

I haven't read the legislation but I haven't read that they can reach across the border and bring their families. Here's what I found on the net (I don't vouch for the truth of it -- merely passing it along.) http://badmuslaw.com/mythbuster-myth-chain-migration-allows-immigrants-bring-their-entire-extended-family-into-the-us/

If true:

FACT: “Chain migration” is not possible under our immigration system. Current backlogs impose significant waiting periods on citizens and green card holders attempting to petition for a family member.
* According to the June 2008 Visa Bulletin Mexican spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents have a current estimated wait of 6 years, while the siblings of U.S. citizens from the Philippines must wait over 22 ½ years.

* Congress has established an annual ceiling of 226,000 visas for family-based immigrant petitions. Once that annual quota is reached, no more family-based immigrant petitions are granted regardless of the number filed.

* Despite alarmist predictions to the contrary, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has found that “massive chain migration is generally not occurring” and studies have determined that “a new immigrant will, ultimately, sponsor 1.2 dependents.”

FACT: U.S. citizens and green card holders can only sponsor direct immediate relatives (spouses, children, and siblings). It is impossible for anyone to sponsor their aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents or any other distant relatives for a visa to enter the United States.

* More than half of all family-based immigrant petitions in 2005 were for the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.

donttread
07-21-2017, 10:13 AM
When Obama unilaterally did this, I was adamantly against it. I was against it not b/c of the substance but b/c I thought that he lacked the constitutional authority to do so. I still do. However, I favor this legislation. It is a step in the right direction.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/20/sens-graham-durbin-introduce-bipartisan-dream-act.html

Sounds OK, but still needs to be vetted. Bad people were all once children.

Cletus
07-21-2017, 11:06 AM
For people brought here as kids, I could support this. If it extends to anyone other than the kids themselves, that would include parents, grandparents, siblings not brought to the US as children... I would be adamantly opposed to it.

MisterVeritis
07-21-2017, 12:30 PM
I haven't read the legislation but I haven't read that they can reach across the border and bring their families. Here's what I found on the net (I don't vouch for the truth of it -- merely passing it along.) http://badmuslaw.com/mythbuster-myth-chain-migration-allows-immigrants-bring-their-entire-extended-family-into-the-us/

If true:

FACT: “Chain migration” is not possible under our immigration system. Current backlogs impose significant waiting periods on citizens and green card holders attempting to petition for a family member.
* According to the June 2008 Visa Bulletin Mexican spouses and minor children of lawful permanent residents have a current estimated wait of 6 years, while the siblings of U.S. citizens from the Philippines must wait over 22 ½ years.

* Congress has established an annual ceiling of 226,000 visas for family-based immigrant petitions. Once that annual quota is reached, no more family-based immigrant petitions are granted regardless of the number filed.

* Despite alarmist predictions to the contrary, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has found that “massive chain migration is generally not occurring” and studies have determined that “a new immigrant will, ultimately, sponsor 1.2 dependents.”

FACT: U.S. citizens and green card holders can only sponsor direct immediate relatives (spouses, children, and siblings). It is impossible for anyone to sponsor their aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents or any other distant relatives for a visa to enter the United States.

* More than half of all family-based immigrant petitions in 2005 were for the spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.
And yet we have many cases where whole families end up in the US based on one US citizen. As each included relative becomes a citizen the net of migration widens.

I would not believe the government on anything. Look around you. Has your neighborhood changed? Do more and more people speak foreign languages? Will you believe your own eyes and ears or will you believe the same federal government that allows if not encourages chain migration from third world countries?

I lived in California for a while several times. In one case the three condos closest to mine (designed to house 2-4 people) had as many as 20 Mexican/other Hispanic individuals each. They were all relatives.

MisterVeritis
07-21-2017, 12:32 PM
For people brought here as kids, I could support this. If it extends to anyone other than the kids themselves, that would include parents, grandparents, siblings not brought to the US as children... I would be adamantly opposed to it.
Someone who has an American relative has priority for immigration. This is a way to continue to flood the nation with people to supplant the white middle class.

donttread
07-21-2017, 05:42 PM
Someone who has an American relative has priority for immigration. This is a way to continue to flood the nation with people to supplant the white middle class.


Cheap labor for the repib masters and votes for the dems. That's why it ain't been fixed yet and it won't be now.

Peter1469
07-21-2017, 05:43 PM
The current immigration law allows citizens to bring in their entire extended families. This is back-door amnesty. It is intended to replace white middle class voters with brown poor people. This was Ted Kennedy's goal and the Democrat's dream. It guarantees they will hold power forever once the tipping point has been reached.
Current legislation under the Immigration Act is pretty tight on close family.

Agent Zero
07-21-2017, 05:46 PM
When Obama unilaterally did this, I was adamantly against it. I was against it not b/c of the substance but b/c I thought that he lacked the constitutional authority to do so. I still do. However, I favor this legislation. It is a step in the right direction.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/07/20/sens-graham-durbin-introduce-bipartisan-dream-act.html

I believe Obama proposed the legislation but couldn't get any of the republicans in congress to do anything with it so he had to go the EO route.

Agent Zero
07-21-2017, 05:49 PM
Isn't it strange how back then Obama was a traitor violating the constitution with executive orders because he was trying to get something done and today our president is scribbling down executive orders (third most in history in the first 6 months of his presidency, behind Roosevelt and Truman) just to rid the country of Obama's good deeds and his bucket carrying base is all for it?

jimmyz
07-21-2017, 06:14 PM
If a legal alien can do my job better than me then he/she can have it. It's the illegal aliens that I want out of here ASAP and a repeal of birthright citizenship to boot.

Cletus
07-21-2017, 06:17 PM
Isn't it strange how back then Obama was a traitor violating the constitution with executive orders because he was trying to get something done and today our president is scribbling down executive orders (third most in history in the first 6 months of his presidency, behind Roosevelt and Truman) just to rid the country of Obama's good deeds and his bucket carrying base is all for it?


It is the CONTENT of the EOs that matters, not the NUMBER.

MisterVeritis
07-21-2017, 06:20 PM
Cheap labor for the repib masters and votes for the dems. That's why it ain't been fixed yet and it won't be now.
Then the nation is done. Fend for yourselves.

MisterVeritis
07-21-2017, 06:21 PM
Current legislation under the Immigration Act is pretty tight on close family.
It has not worked out that way in practice.

MisterVeritis
07-21-2017, 06:23 PM
I believe Obama proposed the legislation but couldn't get any of the republicans in congress to do anything with it so he had to go the EO route.
Obama committed an unconstitutional act. He made law. We should have impeached his ass and tossed him out of office. But Republicans are cowards.

MisterVeritis
07-21-2017, 06:24 PM
Isn't it strange how back then Obama was a traitor violating the constitution with executive orders because he was trying to get something done and today our president is scribbling down executive orders (third most in history in the first 6 months of his presidency, behind Roosevelt and Truman) just to rid the country of Obama's good deeds and his bucket carrying base is all for it?
It is okay to admit you do not understand the Constitution.

Peter1469
07-22-2017, 12:40 AM
Isn't it strange how back then Obama was a traitor violating the constitution with executive orders because he was trying to get something done and today our president is scribbling down executive orders (third most in history in the first 6 months of his presidency, behind Roosevelt and Truman) just to rid the country of Obama's good deeds and his bucket carrying base is all for it?


Do you know what executive orders are and what they do?

I bet the answer is absolutely not.

DGUtley
07-22-2017, 04:51 AM
I believe Obama proposed the legislation but couldn't get any of the republicans in congress to do anything with it so he had to go the EO route.

NO. "Had to go". NO. That is not our constitution. Cmon man. Remember high school. Checks and balances. No.




Isn't it strange how back then Obama was a traitor violating the constitution with executive orders because he was trying to get something done and today our president is scribbling down executive orders (third most in history in the first 6 months of his presidency, behind Roosevelt and Truman) just to rid the country of Obama's good deeds and his bucket carrying base is all for it?

You live by the EO, you die by the EO. One man's good deeds are another's unconstitutional or defined powers overreach. Think high school. Think school house rock.

donttread
07-22-2017, 05:13 AM
NO. "Had to go". NO. That is not our constitution. Cmon man. Remember high school. Checks and balances. No.





You live by the EO, you die by the EO. One man's good deeds are another's unconstitutional or defined powers overreach. Think high school. Think school house rock.


We need an mendment while there is still time.