I believe in safe passage, too. Safe passage to a facility where your plea for asylum will be heard by a judge, then safe passage either to another facility to await a full hearing or safe passage to a bus that will safely pass you back into the country you came in from illegally.

I think she meant "from the border to the voting precinct."

I'm not quite that cynical. I think she means from the border to a home and a welfare check "until they get on their feet".

---

I think she meant "from the border to the voting precinct."

I'm not quite that cynical. I think she means from the border to a home and a welfare check "until they get on their feet".

Oh I am. 

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

LOL.  You know not what you speak.

Which part is wrong?

All of it.  Liberals want illegals naturalized because they hope they will vote and it they do they will most likely vote democrat.  Those that employ illegals regardless of political party do not want them naturalized at all as they could not afford them and many would go under.  Without securing the border (as has been done far too many times) the next day there will be new illegals crossing the border willing to do the same jobs for half the pay.  Some day I hope it dawns on you and many other hard working democrat that this battle is not between red and blue but of the masses vs the establishment.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Which part is wrong?

All of it.  Liberals want illegals naturalized because they hope they will vote and it they do they will most likely vote democrat.  Those that employ illegals regardless of political party do not want them naturalized at all as they could not afford them and many would go under.  Without securing the border (as has been done far too many times) the next day there will be new illegals crossing the border willing to do the same jobs for half the pay.  Some day I hope it dawns on you and many other hard working democrat that this battle is not between red and blue but of the masses vs the establishment.

Here is the false dichotomy you posted: 

"On the one hand you demand $15/hr minimum wage and on the other advocate for illegal immigrants that will do the same job for half the pay under the table."

It sounds like you actually do understand it. 
I'm not a Democrat.
The Democrats deliberately close their eyes to the fact that employers may pay under the table at less than minimum wage if the minimum wage is too high.
They also don't acknowledge that amnesty today might invite a new wave of people presuming on future amnesty and that border security, an actual, complete, monitored fence, is critical if amnesty is to be considered.
The Republican's job is to make them acknowledge and deal with what they don't want to admit.  And vice versa.  But neither side sees any incentive to have a real constructive dialog, not since 2010.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

No, he didn't.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

All of it.  Liberals want illegals naturalized because they hope they will vote and it they do they will most likely vote democrat.  Those that employ illegals regardless of political party do not want them naturalized at all as they could not afford them and many would go under.  Without securing the border (as has been done far too many times) the next day there will be new illegals crossing the border willing to do the same jobs for half the pay.  Some day I hope it dawns on you and many other hard working democrat that this battle is not between red and blue but of the masses vs the establishment.

Here is the false dichotomy you posted: 

"On the one hand you demand $15/hr minimum wage and on the other advocate for illegal immigrants that will do the same job for half the pay under the table."

It sounds like you actually do understand it. 
I'm not a Democrat.
The Democrats deliberately close their eyes to the fact that employers may pay under the table at less than minimum wage if the minimum wage is too high.
They also don't acknowledge that amnesty today might invite a new wave of people presuming on future amnesty and that border security, an actual, complete, monitored fence, is critical if amnesty is to be considered.
The Republican's job is to make them acknowledge and deal with what they don't want to admit.  And vice versa.  But neither side sees any incentive to have a real constructive dialog, not since 2010.

400 miles of dialogue coming right up!

---

I'm not quite that cynical. I think she means from the border to a home and a welfare check "until they get on their feet".

Oh I am. 

I know. It makes me hate to respect you...or respect you so much that I hate you. I never can quite figure it out. You're like the Dark Side equivalent of my own version of libertarianism.

---

I didn't miss it the first time. I know what at-will means.  I'm glad you said it again.  You're at least in touch with reality on those points.

Where you jump on the train to crazy town is where you say that the person who can fire her for any reason or no reason isn't her boss.  That's nuts. The President is her boss.  But she also has to follow the law and answer questions from Congress if asked.  Guess what: both of us also have to follow the law and answer questions from Congress if asked! I have a boss who can fire me, and you probably do too.  We are the same as her, except her boss is the President.

The issue here is most likely that the President has asked her to do her job in a way that she doesn't feel is lawful.  He has demanded her resignation so he can find someone who doesn't think his orders are unlawful, or doesn't care.  Or maybe you're right, maybe she went through the pain of a Senate confirmation just to give up and leave public service after just 17 months.  Guess what: most people in her position write their resignation letters without mentioning whether they were asked to leave.  The letter on its own proves nothing.  She will be more free to speak once she actually steps down.

Have u been paying attention to anything?  I mean literally ANYTHING?  

@ THE heart of this whole issue is something called the Flores settlement.  It's an unconstitutional act of judicial supremacy where some 9th circuit lunatic tried to enact policy that was never passed by Congress and limit the amount of time a minor can be detained by the state, and the libs extrapolated this to defacto mandate catch and release of family units and thus we've seen an unprecedented influx of family units @ the border.  

The president's position is, in the meantime, detain the adults release the children to relatives or other custodians and challenge the flores decision in the long run.  Nelson wasn't on board with the optics and PR of family separation so she's out.  As DHS SECRETARY her political function in the administration is to advocate publicly and implement practically the policies of the chief executive. If she couldn't do that then she's out.  

A.) I see u have no issue with clear judicial overreach ( long standing that the president basically has universal power to ban any class or group of migrant from the country that he sees fit, and that the judiciary subordinates decisions on national security to the branches that actually answer to voters and, I don't know, actually get security briefings.)

B.) The whirlwind misdirection that any dismissal of a cabinet official is because they were the lone voice of reason against the mad tyrant is both childish and asinine.  Jeff sessions got pushed into a refusal by a comedian from Minnesota.  As a result, 30 million dollars 2 years and people's lives were wasted to grill the biggest nothing burger this side of Wisconsin.  

Never trumped derangement syndrome might be the more virulent of the two strands.

First you say I must not know what the Flores settlement is, then you accuse me of not caring about it.
At the moment you wrote each sentence, it made you feel superior.  Even though they can't both be true.  Your main goal here is probably just to feel superior to me, not understand my point of view.

So, the rest of this post is probably worthless.  I will fill in a couple of blanks you have on my point if view, even though you probably don't care.

I do know what the Flores settlement is.  Someone sued over indefinite family detention, so time limits were set via a settlement process.  The idea at the time was that a case could be processed within the time limits.  But now we have a backlog.

There are numerous ways to deal with the backlog, and a number of legal manuvers one could take to get the settlement reconsidered in light of new facts.  

Separating the children was not particularly effective at either, and it was literally the least humane of the possible choices.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The problem is he only wants to do anything about illegal immigration because it keeps his base loyal, not because he gives a rat's [BLEEP] about the issue.

I'm more curious as to why liberals are not more concerned about the issue.

On the one hand you demand $15/hr minimum wage and on the other advocate for illegal immigrants that will do the same job for half the pay under the table.

I'm more curious as to why liberals are not more concerned about the issue.

On the one hand you demand $15/hr minimum wage and on the other advocate for illegal immigrants that will do the same job for half the pay under the table.

the liberals and some conservatives want the illegal immigrants to be normalized so that employers will have to pay them minimum wage above board.
it's only the very nihilistic, wealthy conservatives that want to continue being able to pay them at half price under the table.

All of it.  Liberals want illegals naturalized because they hope they will vote and it they do they will most likely vote democrat.  Those that employ illegals regardless of political party do not want them naturalized at all as they could not afford them and many would go under.  Without securing the border (as has been done far too many times) the next day there will be new illegals crossing the border willing to do the same jobs for half the pay.  Some day I hope it dawns on you and many other hard working democrat that this battle is not between red and blue but of the masses vs the establishment.

Here is the false dichotomy you posted: 

"On the one hand you demand $15/hr minimum wage and on the other advocate for illegal immigrants that will do the same job for half the pay under the table."

It sounds like you actually do understand it. 
I'm not a Democrat.
The Democrats deliberately close their eyes to the fact that employers may pay under the table at less than minimum wage if the minimum wage is too high.
They also don't acknowledge that amnesty today might invite a new wave of people presuming on future amnesty and that border security, an actual, complete, monitored fence, is critical if amnesty is to be considered.
The Republican's job is to make them acknowledge and deal with what they don't want to admit.  And vice versa.  But neither side sees any incentive to have a real constructive dialog, not since 2010.

Above you will see the genesis of my participation into this discussion.  You will note that rollerjag made a statement that I found profound enough to respond to.  You then responded on his behalf with what I, based upon personal experience found absurd. You then asked me to qualify my statement to which I did.  And then you posted this gem:   

Here is the false dichotomy you posted: 


"On the one hand you demand $15/hr minimum wage and on the other advocate for illegal immigrants that will do the same job for half the pay under the table."

It sounds like you actually do understand it. 
I'm not a Democrat.
The Democrats deliberately close their eyes to the fact that employers may pay under the table at less than minimum wage if the minimum wage is too high.
They also don't acknowledge that amnesty today might invite a new wave of people presuming on future amnesty and that border security, an actual, complete, monitored fence, is critical if amnesty is to be considered.
The Republican's job is to make them acknowledge and deal with what they don't want to admit.  And vice versa.  But neither side sees any incentive to have a real constructive dialog, not since 2010.            


You win.  I'm so confused I don't know whether to defecate or wind my watch.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Oh I am. 

I know. It makes me hate to respect you...or respect you so much that I hate you. I never can quite figure it out. You're like the Dark Side equivalent of my own version of libertarianism.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I'm more curious as to why liberals are not more concerned about the issue.
On the one hand you demand $15/hr minimum wage and on the other advocate for illegal immigrants that will do the same job for half the pay under the table.

...
You win.  I'm so confused I don't know whether to defecate or wind my watch.

I'm not trying to confuse you. I think you're confusing me too.
The bleeding heart liberals do not see a conflict between these two points of advocacy. 
They close their eyes to the downsides of a higher minimum wage.
And they close their eyes to the downsides of more immigrants.
and because they close our eyes to these downsides, they fail to see the correlation that you see.
Of course not everyone on the liberal side thinks so wishfully, some Express these wishful thoughts dishonestly and cynically as a path to power.
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say now.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Have u been paying attention to anything?  I mean literally ANYTHING?  

@ THE heart of this whole issue is something called the Flores settlement.  It's an unconstitutional act of judicial supremacy where some 9th circuit lunatic tried to enact policy that was never passed by Congress and limit the amount of time a minor can be detained by the state, and the libs extrapolated this to defacto mandate catch and release of family units and thus we've seen an unprecedented influx of family units @ the border.  

The president's position is, in the meantime, detain the adults release the children to relatives or other custodians and challenge the flores decision in the long run.  Nelson wasn't on board with the optics and PR of family separation so she's out.  As DHS SECRETARY her political function in the administration is to advocate publicly and implement practically the policies of the chief executive. If she couldn't do that then she's out.  

A.) I see u have no issue with clear judicial overreach ( long standing that the president basically has universal power to ban any class or group of migrant from the country that he sees fit, and that the judiciary subordinates decisions on national security to the branches that actually answer to voters and, I don't know, actually get security briefings.)

B.) The whirlwind misdirection that any dismissal of a cabinet official is because they were the lone voice of reason against the mad tyrant is both childish and asinine.  Jeff sessions got pushed into a refusal by a comedian from Minnesota.  As a result, 30 million dollars 2 years and people's lives were wasted to grill the biggest nothing burger this side of Wisconsin.  

Never trumped derangement syndrome might be the more virulent of the two strands.

First you say I must not know what the Flores settlement is, then you accuse me of not caring about it.
At the moment you wrote each sentence, it made you feel superior.  Even though they can't both be true.  Your main goal here is probably just to feel superior to me, not understand my point of view.

So, the rest of this post is probably worthless.  I will fill in a couple of blanks you have on my point if view, even though you probably don't care.

I do know what the Flores settlement is.  Someone sued over indefinite family detention, so time limits were set via a settlement process.  The idea at the time was that a case could be processed within the time limits.  But now we have a backlog.

There are numerous ways to deal with the backlog, and a number of legal manuvers one could take to get the settlement reconsidered in light of new facts.  

Separating the children was not particularly effective at either, and it was literally the least humane of the possible choices.

Thank u for proving my point old friend!

---

...
You win.  I'm so confused I don't know whether to defecate or wind my watch.

I'm not trying to confuse you. I think you're confusing me too.
The bleeding heart liberals do not see a conflict between these two points of advocacy. 
They close their eyes to the downsides of a higher minimum wage.
And they close their eyes to the downsides of more immigrants.
and because they close our eyes to these downsides, they fail to see the correlation that you see.
Of course not everyone on the liberal side thinks so wishfully, some Express these wishful thoughts dishonestly and cynically as a path to power.
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say now.

Gotcha.  Now the definition of dichotomy makes sense.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Has Jake Tapper’s breathless article had Trump impeached yet? Just checking.

---