Clinton vows to expand Obama's immigration executive actions - Page 4

This is too easy.
I actually had a fair opinion of you prior to this.


But this is an affront not only to basic critical thinking but to reliable sources 101; its as if you cheery-picked the facts that support your delusive narrative without absolutely any context - using the most discredible sources to boot -without even bothering to read them. This is simply self-discrediting.

Either you harbour such supreme contempt for your audience or are genuinely too dishonest or uncritical yourself.

The whole of your contention is founded basically on source2, "the good guys" thing, derived from some obscure opinion website, written by an anonymous nomenclature "Kosar". Their is a reason he wouldn't dignify this piece with his own name:

(Your Source2)
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/b...l-immigration/

Within it "Kosar" references Trumps "5-point plan about immigration" that has presumably gone hitherto unnoticed. For which he provides another source.

(Pro Tip, click on the links on webpages and read them)

Which takes us to:

http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/donald-tr...anchor-babies/

And you immediately discover two thing:
1) That the "5-point immigration" plan that helps the "good guys" is based on Trump’s 2011 book, “Time to Get Tough: Making America #1 Again”. Again, 2011, during his abortive attempt at running for president.
I suppose context and background aren’t really relevant when it doesn’t suit your delusional narratives.

2) There is no plan contained within it to keep "the guy good" in America. - It is exclusively focused on enforcement of current law.

(Since you appear too inept to research and read primary documents yourself: http://www.ontheissues.org/Get_Tough.htm or buy the book on Amazon.)

In fact, he makes the counter-factual claim within it: “I actually have a theory that Mexico is sending their absolute worst, possibly including prisoners, in order for us to bear the cost, both financial and social. This would account for the fact that there is so much crime and violence.”

Source1 can be dismissed of-hand nearly - but lets look at it. It is not even Republicans per-se, it’s a single Republican congressman starting a pro-immigration PAC that he actually subverted as a vehicle to curry favor. In fact - such is your contempt for yourself and others - the very same article itself diminishes it as nothing more than such:

“When the time comes they will be poised to help us on the immigration issue,” Curbelo said. “I could have just established a generic leadership PAC but I decided voluntarily — I didn’t have to do this — to employ this resource to advance a policy agenda that is important to me.”
"Leadership PACs are typically used by politicians to curry favor and build rapport with colleagues through donations. Curbelo was, and still is, adamant that WACPAC is not a typical leadership PAC.
But statements from at least two congressmen who received money from WACPAC indicate otherwise.
Hunter’s chief of staff, Joe Kasper, suggested that Curbelo and Hunter’s co-membership on the transportation and infrastructure committee was a major reason why WACPAC donated to Hunter. “I know they have a personal relationship,” he said."

The only conclusion I can draw from this is that you cannot be bothered to read the articles you post "as evidence" - when the slightest cursory examination shows that they repudiate or outright contradict the positions they were posted to support.

All in all, it’s impossible to exaggerate how sublimely idiotic this was as far as -what did you call it? - "Absolute evidence" goes. No, not idiotic, downright dishonest if intentional or even semi-serious, which is worse. I will answer the rest when I get home, point by point. (I admit, I enjoy this sort of thing).

In fact, I can argue your case better than you can, and point out his actual position, which ive already alluded to. It isn’t deportation either but its hardly better than what is being offered on the opposite aisle.

I myself was a Bernie supporter – I phone banked for him in Atlanta and donated few hundreds. But we do not have the luxury of deluding ourselves.

Lie to me, lie to everyone else; but don’t lie to yourself. Those are the worst sort – the ones we tell ourselves.

Why are you replying to Chyno? You do realize the guy is an idiot right? who backpedals backwards and can't actually keep an argument. You're wasting time with this trump troll. T

You make it too easy.

Also, I enjoy your insults it shows you're a weak debater.

I assume you never went to college for a real degree based on your debating.

Let's break this down.

Donald Trump said the following:

Link

He said he will legalize the good ones. I believe I posted the wrong link on source2, so here is source3.

Thanks for your insult it does not add to your argument.

I was wrong it wasnt on source2, but now you can find it on source3. Get back at me with that.

I thought I read it there previously, but I guess I was wrong. Read source3 and get back at me.

Yeah, the same can be said about Hillary. Does Hillary have a plan to legalize us? All she says is she will do something the first 100 days. Trump said he will legalize the good ones. I am going off that fact.

I never denied he will deport people. I am stating he will legalize the good ones.

Okay, and what? He said something stupid. I don't agree with what he said. Do you agree with Hillary killing the american in Benghazi?

Once again, I do not agree with Trump but what I am stating is that he will legalize the good ones and not do a mass deportation.

How did you come up with this conclusion? How do you know they are contradicting their position?


Useless opinions that do no add to the debate.

So your post was useless and did not prove me wrong that Trump will legalize the good ones.

Why is Chyno banned? Bring him back!

Why would you want a trump supporter in this site go goes to threads and brings up trump and Hilary as much as he can ?

I wonder what users are admin.

Hallelujah!!!!!!!!!

Lol if move em out is not deportation I don't know what is? Move em out to where?

"So your post was useless and did not prove me wrong that Trump will legalize the good ones."

Impossible to disprove or prove the negative for a position which was never established in the first instance. The burden of proof rest with you. And this was your “absolute evidence”:

This. Yes. This. Which had nothing to do with legalization.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/b...l-immigration/

To the point.

This is Trumps only slightly positive utterances – not policy statements mind you, not written down anywhere - on illegal immigrants. The whole of your argument that he is for the 'good guys' (i.e. illegals without criminal records) can only be founded on a generous reading, requiring a suspension of disbelieve and skepticism, of one interview, given almost a year ago:

Dana Bash – which you site indirectly – finally. Let me help you. http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1507/29/cg.01.html

And again in passing during the Milwaukee debate
http://time.com/4107636/transcript-r...-in-milwaukee/

So what is this position? From the horses incoherent mouth itself:

“I would get people out and then have an expedited way of getting them back into the country so they can be legal… I want to move them out. I want to move them back in and let them be legal.”

Same interview: “No citizenship”, just legalization.

As mentioned, it’s the resuscitated 2007 “touchback” amendment expounded by Senator Hutchison, whereby undocumented immigrants return to native country, apply via special visa to re-enter the U.S as guest-works for five years, and get legalization.

This is in effect the much touted but never directly cited Trump position you are wont to brandish, often cryptically. Why it took so long is beyond me. Everything prior was just kicking up dust and saving face.

A few observations about this “good guy” proposal:

A logistical nightmare. In many cases, in real terms, will take longer than two years to return. To say nothing of the separation of U.S. citizen children from parents.

The creation of a class of cheap migrant workers due to re-entry accompanied by a workers visa for five years. Must remain certified by employer. That means filling needed cheap labor positions first.

At bottom, it is needlessly costly, punitive chore, fraught with possible pitfalls for immigrants, with no substantive reason or benefit to the country except to satisfy a base which would be against it anyway.

It was an appalling and terrible policy then. In fact, it scuttled the entire bill, and was still rejected by the Republican base it was meant to appease. It remains so today.

Level with me a minute Chyo

So this is it, the apocalyptic “good guy” proposal; our New Jerusalem to come?

Doesn’t concern you that he never enunciated this position, such as it is, again since July 29, 2015? That in typical fashion, he has instead double down on enforcement only?

So we should be willing to wager and possibly roll-back a decade of pain-staking progress brought about by the indefatigable lobbying, the untiring toil and activism of untold numbers that culminated in DACA. That almost passed CIR and DAPA except that a Republican Speaker of the House would not allow it a simple up-or-down vote and Republican Judge in Texas filed an injunction.

For --- this?
This is qualitatively better than DAPA or 2014 CIR?

This is the best we can get? A position that wasn’t even bipartisan ten years ago. To a time when DACA was not the baseline, and Republicans could freely enumerate punitive, sadistic measures such as this one without a second thought?

To come full circle to the original question, asked but never actually answered.

Even ignoring the above, on what basis do you suppose Trump would even follow through on this non-policy statement, uttered a year ago and never mentioned or written down anywhere; never written down anywhere. At best a verbal reference?

This is the very same person who shifts his positions as often as he touches up his comb-over. Who speaks from both sides of his mouth, depending on where the wind is blowing. To take a few examples (in actual order of things said, abbreviated for purposes of space):

Muslim ban: 1) Ban all M’s. 2) Ban all but some M’s. 3) Only suggestion (just kidding!) 4) Ban M’s & countries with history of terrorism (CHoT). 5) Ban all from CHoT (couldn’t name one). 6) Ban M’s from CHoT, & other M’s. 7) Ban was never about M’s. 8 ) Ban is negotiable. 9) Ban with “extreme vetting”. Current position (as of 7/26): Ban M’s, other CHoT’s, don’t call it ban on M’s.

ISIS: 1) Maybe send troops, definitely take oil. 2) Bomb oil field, send some troops. 3) Send troops, don’t forget about oil fields. 4) Destroy oil field, let allies send troops, stop buying oil if they refuse. 5) Declare war, send in some troops. Current position (as of 7/26): declare war, blame Clinton, send in “very few” troops.

Immigration: 1) Build wall, deport all undocumented (by tripling number of ICE officers, see below). 2) Deport all undocumented but bring “good guys” back, Dreamers maybe can stay (where Chyo is still at) 3) Dreamers cannot definitely stay. 4) Ok, maybe I will be flexible about this deportation thing (off-the-record NTY talk). 5) Ramp up deportation, which is the center of his immigration policy, but don’t call it mass deportation. Current position (as of 7/26): Status quo, increase enforcement, continue deportation (no more mention of “good guy” policy).

1) https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positio...gration-reform

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016...itions-n547801

And so on.

I could go on. So trust the vague vagaries (not even promises) of a man former ghostwriter calls a self-absorbed “sociopath” (1); a man who defrauded thousands of students with his fake University and was found guilty (2); declared business bankruptcy multiple times, passing the bill to investors and contractors (3); reneging on payment to workers and small companies (4), etc etc.

1)http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/20...iter-tells-all
2)http://www.litigationandtrial.com/20.../curiel-trump/
3)https://www.thestreet.com/story/1328...kruptcies.html
4)http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/p...uits/85297274/


Even if you suppose Hillary indifferent to immigration reform, her party isn’t. It’s also in their platform, it’s also only their most critical and growing voter bloc which desires it. Neither of which can be said about Trump and the Republicans.

Officially, she supports and endorses DACA, DAPA, CIR (1). Even if nominally, even if it is empty political cant, she pays lib-service to it – which means we can call her out on it. There is no recourse if Trump does not deliver – you are completely at his tender mercies. Any why would he? His biggest voting bloc – white, male, and poor – do not want you here (2).

1)https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issue...ration-reform/
2)http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...really/471714/

Stop allowing your distaste of Hillary to cloud your perception of reality.

At any rate, there is nothing of substance left on this subject (of which you contributed nothing – to say nothing of that transparently pathetic and self-discrediting bit with your “sources”).

Your psychosis – errr… irrational endorsement founded on a scarcity of facts, is your own private affair. Everything worth says has been said.

Ultimately, it’s up to others to study all the facts and arrive at their own conclusion on the subject. By all means, do your own research.