JUST IN: Bipartisan group in Senate says they’ve reached a deal on DACA… - Right Scoop

[TomSea]

JUST IN: Bipartisan group in Senate says they’ve reached a deal on DACA… [UPDATED WITH FEW DETAILS]

While the Senate has just officially begun debating DACA with an empty bill (after delays cause by Democrats), a group of bipartisan Senators say they have reached a deal on DACA:

    A bipartisan group of senators has consensus on a deal to give a path to citizenship for so-called Dreamers and also add funding for border security, GOP Senator Lindsey Graham said.

    The deal doesn’t address the diversity visa lottery and overall issue of family-based immigration, Graham said, although so-called Dreamers’ parents wouldn’t qualify for family-sponsored visas.

Read more at: http://therightscoop.com/just-in-bipartisan-group-in-senate-says-theyve-reached-a-deal-on-daca/

[INVAR]

The oligarchy will have the Amnesty they want, and Trump will tell you all that the shitcone he is signing is chocolate covered and the best deal for the country.

It will be enjoyable watching all the sycophants lick it up and lie to themselves and us by telling us all how delicious it is.

[Jazzhead]

This might work - if $25 billion is obtained for border security/enforcement,  Trump should be able to sell it to his base.   It probably makes sense to kick the can on family immigration for another day.  Any change in that policy depends on where we go with respect to increasing or decreasing legal immigration in the future.   

The WSJ made an excellent point today.  Trumpers  have no moral right to complain that about illegals "cutting in line", when they propose to take the line away.   We need to decide as a nation what level of legal immigration is consistent with our values and priorities - including future economic growth and prosperity.   I know where I stand.     

[thackney]

...The WSJ made an excellent point today.  Trumpers have no moral right to complain that about illegals "cutting in line", when they propose to take the line away.   We need to decide as a nation what level of legal immigration is consistent with our values and priorities - including future economic growth and prosperity.   I know where I stand.

Who has proposed taking away legal immigration?  I haven't seen that as a proposal by anyone in congress or the president.

[driftdiver]

The oligarchy will have the Amnesty they want, and Trump will tell you all that the shitcone he is signing is chocolate covered and the best deal for the country.

It will be enjoyable watching all the sycophants lick it up and lie to themselves and us by telling us all how delicious it is.

@INVAR
And you will continue to be irrelevant with your mud slinging and name calling

good luck with your party of 1, no I take that back.  No luck, just go have fun playing with yourself

[Jazzhead]

Who has proposed taking away legal immigration?  I haven't seen that as a proposal by anyone in congress or the president.

I was referring to those that insist that any DACA deal include an end to family based immigration and generally want to reduce future immigration.  Here's the quote from this morning's WSJ, in context:

  But Mr. Trump has also agreed to process the backlog of 3.7 million family members currently waiting for visas.  The latter could take ore than a decade, so there won't be a major reduction in family-based immigration anytime soon.  Mr. Trump's offer has also exposed restrictionists who have long argued that any form of "amnesty" for illegal immigrants is unfair to those who have waited in line.  But now the restrictionists want to bar those waiting in line too.

 This is a bait and switch that Mr. Trump is right to reject - and Democrats should give him credit for doing. Some compromise over family migration ought to be possible, but if Democrats won't budge then the GOP will surely withdraw Mr. Trump's offer on the backlog.   Democrats have to decide if they want to accept this concession and fight for more family migration when a Democrat is President

 

[skeeter]

How many times has Lindsey Graham came at us waving a 'bipartisan immigration deal'?

How many of them succeeded?

I don't know what motivates this jerk but he is determined.

[skeeter]

The WSJ made an excellent point today.  Trumpers  have no moral right to complain that about illegals "cutting in line", when they propose to take the line away.   We need to decide as a nation what level of legal immigration is consistent with our values and priorities - including future economic growth and prosperity.   I know where I stand.   

F&% the elitists at the WSJ. Where immigration is concerned American citizens have the right to do whatever the hell they want. They can decide on whatever rules of entry they want, who gets to come in and who to keep out.

We can decide to keep immigrants out entirely. Morality has NOTHING to do with it. Its OUR country.

[thackney]

I was referring to those that insist that any DACA deal include an end to family based immigration and generally want to reduce future immigration.  Here's the quote from this morning's WSJ, in context:

Can we agree then the immigration line still exists, even if some of the short-cuts to jump ahead in line (cousin of an immigrant, rather than going through the standard immigration process) have been removed?

[INVAR]

And you will continue to be irrelevant with your mud slinging and name calling

good luck with your party of 1, no I take that back.  No luck, just go have fun playing with yourself

The fruits are self-evident that your party is irredeemably corrupt and part of the Uniparty oligarchy.   Amnesty and DACA are going to happen, yuuuugely, and the Trump Apologists are going to lecture us simpletons about how necessary and wise it is to renege on Trump's signature campaign issue... before they go blaming everyone else for Trump's signature.

I choose not to be in your herd of lemmings being led off the cliff to oblivion - but please...enjoy the fall.

I'll be waving at your flailing form before you hit the rocks below.

[skeeter]

The fruits are self-evident that your party is irredeemably corrupt and part of the Uniparty oligarchy.   Amnesty and DACA are going to happen, yuuuugely, and the Trump Apologists are going to lecture us simpletons about how necessary and wise it is to renege on Trump's signature campaign issue... before they go blaming everyone else for Trump's signature.

I choose not to be in your herd of lemmings being led off the cliff to oblivion - but please...enjoy the fall.

I'll be waving at your flailing form before you hit the rocks below.

Although you've made it more than clear how you feel about this administration I do look forward to your next colorful word picture illustrating the same dang point you've been making for 16 months solid now.

[truth_seeker]

The WSJ made an excellent point today.  Trumpers  have no moral right to complain that about illegals "cutting in line", when they propose to take the line away.   We need to decide as a nation what level of legal immigration is consistent with our values and priorities - including future economic growth and prosperity.   I know where I stand.   

They DO NOT propose to take the line away. They DO propose making the line more selective. Based on skills.

[Jazzhead]

F&% the elitists at the WSJ. Where immigration is concerned American citizens have the right to do whatever the hell they want. They can decide on whatever rules of entry they want, who gets to come in and who to keep out.

We can decide to keep immigrants out entirely. Morality has NOTHING to do with it. Its OUR country.

"Morality" has to do with the hypocrisy of complaining about "cutting in line" while at the same time seeking to take the line away.   

Of course the people of this country have the right (through their elected representatives) to set immigration policy consistent with the Constitution.  But restricting legal immigration would be extraordinarily stupid and self-defeating.   What's at stake is our economic growth and prosperity.  It is hardly "elitist" to want that.   

[skeeter]

"Morality" has to do with the hypocrisy of complaining about "cutting in line" while at the same time seeking to take the line away.   

Its a silly, contrived argument & non sequitur. Typical of the WSJ when addressing the subject of immigration. No one in a position to act is proposing taking the line away.

[Free Vulcan]

Looks like we're going to get a BOHICA on DACA.

[INVAR]

Looks like we're going to get a BOHICA on DACA.

BOHICA and GOP go together like PB&J.

[RetBobbyMI]

if Graham is involved=Suspect
if Dems involved=Suspect