RNC has money haul over DNC.

What actually needs to be done for immigration?
The current law is the law.
The Dims can start by proposing actual changes to law. I don't get why folks whine about exsisting law. Trump can't change actual law on his own Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

A POTUS can’t write any laws. Speedy seems to ignore that fact too.

Trump did what he could do on HC. He did eliminate the ACA mandate. As for immigration, again, he did what he could do. He got Mexico to enforce THEIR southern border and since then, illegal crossings are way down. 4550 miles of border barrier will be completed by the end of next year. He’s kept us out of needless wars, destroyed the ISIS caliphate. As far as the tax cuts and the economy? Do you really think you have a valid argument ? Originally Posted by bambino

Have you forgotten TrumpCare, that piece of crap legislation that was never even brought to a Senate vote?

On immigration, he is doing his best to allow only educated, white, English-speaking people from very specific countries into the U.S. Trump continues to greatly reduce the number of refugees being admitted into this country to an all-time low.

I can find no data to support your claim that "illegal crossings are way down". Maybe you can provide a link to a reliable source supporting that statement.

There has been no new border wall built since Trump has taken office.

"President Donald Trump continues to claim that his signature promise from 2016 — to build a U.S.-Mexico border wall — is well on its way, and that hundreds of miles will be completed by the end of 2020, when it’s time for voters to decide whether to re-elect him as president. Chants at his rallies have gone from "build the wall" to "finish the wall."

But despite the chants and Trump’s repeated assurances that a border wall is under construction, what’s been achieved so far doesn’t reflect his campaign promise.

Before Trump became president, 654 miles of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S. Mexico border had primary barriers. As of today, that hasn’t increased.

To date, the administration has replaced about 60 miles of dilapidated barriers with new fencing. And a major component of Trump’s pledge — that Mexico would pay for the wall — hasn’t been part of the equation. U.S. taxpayers have paid the cost."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...s-really-been/

"Replacing dilapidated vehicle barriers and weathered fencing with newer, sturdier stuff is the kind of routine government business that predated Trump. It’s fair to say Trump is trying to put this routine business on steroids, but that’s still a far cry from the massive new bulwark made of concrete that he promised for so long.

Furthermore, only 64 miles of fences and barriers have been built during Trump’s presidency, far short of the 1,000 miles he once pledged, and far short of the 450 to 529 miles he now pledges. The new construction so far replaced older fences and barriers. So we will reaffirm our Three Pinocchio ruling."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mains-unbuilt/

The impact of tax reform has been debated on this forum ad infinitum. It definitely had a positive impact on the earnings of corporations, earnings that were used primarily to buy back stock. It definitely had a positive impact on the rich. It had little impact on those at the middle of the middle class and below and when you factor in the increase in cost of living under Trump, in part due to the ridiculous tariff wars he is waging, people at the lower end of the income spectrum have lost buying power.

What actually needs to be done for immigration?
The current law is the law.
The Dims can start by proposing actual changes to law. I don't get why folks whine about exsisting law. Trump can't change actual law on his own Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Ridiculous comments. Immigration is impacted by policy, not law. Trump limits the number of refugees, not by law but by policy. He sets the number of green cards given out, not by law but by policy. The amount of money allocated to immigration control is determined by Congress, not by law.

Are there any immigration "laws"?

Ridiculous comments. Immigration is impacted by policy, not law. Trump limits the number of refugees, not by law but by policy. He sets the number of green cards given out, not by law but by policy. The amount of money allocated to immigration control is determined by Congress, not by law.

Are there any immigration "laws"? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

why yes there is! thank you for asking!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_law


Immigration law refers to the national statutes, regulations, and legal precedents governing immigration into and deportation from a country. Strictly speaking, it is distinct from other matters such as naturalization and citizenship, although they are often conflated. Immigration laws vary around the world, as well as according to the social and political climate of the times, as acceptance of immigrants sways from the widely inclusive to the deeply nationalist and isolationist. Countries frequently maintain laws which regulate both the rights of entry and exit as well as internal rights, such as the duration of stay, freedom of movement, and the right to participate in commerce or government.
National laws regarding the immigration of citizens of that country are regulated by international law. The United Nations' International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights mandates[1] that all countries allow entry to their own citizens.


correct me if i'm wrong but i don't see the word "policy" mentioned anywhere above.

Have you forgotten TrumpCare, that piece of crap legislation that was never even brought to a Senate vote?

On immigration, he is doing his best to allow only educated, white, English-speaking people from very specific countries into the U.S. Trump continues to greatly reduce the number of refugees being admitted into this country to an all-time low.

I can find no data to support your claim that "illegal crossings are way down". Maybe you can provide a link to a reliable source supporting that statement.

There has been no new border wall built since Trump has taken office.

"President Donald Trump continues to claim that his signature promise from 2016 — to build a U.S.-Mexico border wall — is well on its way, and that hundreds of miles will be completed by the end of 2020, when it’s time for voters to decide whether to re-elect him as president. Chants at his rallies have gone from "build the wall" to "finish the wall."

But despite the chants and Trump’s repeated assurances that a border wall is under construction, what’s been achieved so far doesn’t reflect his campaign promise.

Before Trump became president, 654 miles of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S. Mexico border had primary barriers. As of today, that hasn’t increased.

To date, the administration has replaced about 60 miles of dilapidated barriers with new fencing. And a major component of Trump’s pledge — that Mexico would pay for the wall — hasn’t been part of the equation. U.S. taxpayers have paid the cost."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...s-really-been/

"Replacing dilapidated vehicle barriers and weathered fencing with newer, sturdier stuff is the kind of routine government business that predated Trump. It’s fair to say Trump is trying to put this routine business on steroids, but that’s still a far cry from the massive new bulwark made of concrete that he promised for so long.

Furthermore, only 64 miles of fences and barriers have been built during Trump’s presidency, far short of the 1,000 miles he once pledged, and far short of the 450 to 529 miles he now pledges. The new construction so far replaced older fences and barriers. So we will reaffirm our Three Pinocchio ruling."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mains-unbuilt/

The impact of tax reform has been debated on this forum ad infinitum. It definitely had a positive impact on the earnings of corporations, earnings that were used primarily to buy back stock. It definitely had a positive impact on the rich. It had little impact on those at the middle of the middle class and below and when you factor in the increase in cost of living under Trump, in part due to the ridiculous tariff wars he is waging, people at the lower end of the income spectrum have lost buying power. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Here’s a link https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/...ry?id=64228594

Now educate yourself. 75 miles of wall have been built, some replacing woefully inadequate barriers. You do your own research.

Here’s a link concerning the tax cut.

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics/...ry?id=64228594

Are you trying to say it didn’t help the unemployment numbers and growing wages? Those are real numbers. But hey, believe what you want. BTW, AA wages are growing faster than any other demographic. You look it up. I guess your browser only shows you lefty rags like Politifact.

Have you forgotten TrumpCare, that piece of crap legislation that was never even brought to a Senate vote?

On immigration, he is doing his best to allow only educated, white, English-speaking people from very specific countries into the U.S. Trump continues to greatly reduce the number of refugees being admitted into this country to an all-time low.

I can find no data to support your claim that "illegal crossings are way down". Maybe you can provide a link to a reliable source supporting that statement.

There has been no new border wall built since Trump has taken office.

"President Donald Trump continues to claim that his signature promise from 2016 — to build a U.S.-Mexico border wall — is well on its way, and that hundreds of miles will be completed by the end of 2020, when it’s time for voters to decide whether to re-elect him as president. Chants at his rallies have gone from "build the wall" to "finish the wall."

But despite the chants and Trump’s repeated assurances that a border wall is under construction, what’s been achieved so far doesn’t reflect his campaign promise.

Before Trump became president, 654 miles of the nearly 2,000-mile U.S. Mexico border had primary barriers. As of today, that hasn’t increased.

To date, the administration has replaced about 60 miles of dilapidated barriers with new fencing. And a major component of Trump’s pledge — that Mexico would pay for the wall — hasn’t been part of the equation. U.S. taxpayers have paid the cost."

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...s-really-been/

"Replacing dilapidated vehicle barriers and weathered fencing with newer, sturdier stuff is the kind of routine government business that predated Trump. It’s fair to say Trump is trying to put this routine business on steroids, but that’s still a far cry from the massive new bulwark made of concrete that he promised for so long.

Furthermore, only 64 miles of fences and barriers have been built during Trump’s presidency, far short of the 1,000 miles he once pledged, and far short of the 450 to 529 miles he now pledges. The new construction so far replaced older fences and barriers. So we will reaffirm our Three Pinocchio ruling."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mains-unbuilt/

The impact of tax reform has been debated on this forum ad infinitum. It definitely had a positive impact on the earnings of corporations, earnings that were used primarily to buy back stock. It definitely had a positive impact on the rich. It had little impact on those at the middle of the middle class and below and when you factor in the increase in cost of living under Trump, in part due to the ridiculous tariff wars he is waging, people at the lower end of the income spectrum have lost buying power. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Don't recall that JFK's promise to put a man on the moon occurred during his administration, but it happened -- eventually.

I didn’t predict they would win the house Speedy for the tenth time. I said history and too many retirements on the House side. I did say they would gain seats in the Senate. Which they did and was historic. You can ignore that. I never said he would win more electoral votes in 2020. Quit putting words in my mouth. Originally Posted by bambino

I am not going to go back to late 2016 to check and see whether or not you predicted Republicans would hold the House. I do not remember a single Trump supporter saying the Democrats would take control of the House in 2016. The House victory for the Democrats was historic. The Senate victory for Republicans was expected, even by me. 33 Senate seats up for reelection, 25 of which were Democratic. Democrats held seats in heavily Republican Montana and WV. Arizona went Democratic. The only race that was remotely a Republican upset was in Florida,a race won by Scott by .13%.

Regarding 2020, in an earlier thread I distinctly remember you stating that Trump would win more electoral votes in 2020 than he won in 2016. You stated he would win all the states he won in 2016 and pick up, in all likelihood, NH and Minnesota.

I am not going to go back to late 2016 to check and see whether or not you predicted Republicans would hold the House. I do not remember a single Trump supporter saying the Democrats would take control of the House in 2016. The House victory for the Democrats was historic. The Senate victory for Republicans was expected, even by me. 33 Senate seats up for reelection, 25 of which were Democratic. Democrats held seats in heavily Republican Montana and WV. Arizona went Democratic. The only race that was remotely a Republican upset was in Florida,a race won by Scott by .13%.

Regarding 2020, in an earlier thread I distinctly remember you stating that Trump would win more electoral votes in 2020 than he won in 2016. You stated he would win all the states he won in 2016 and pick up, in all likelihood, NH and Minnesota. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

the house victory was routine and typical for mid terms. what was historic was Obama's shocking losses in his midterms

butt you knew that, right???


Under Obama, Democrats suffer largest loss in power since Eisenhower

https://www.quorum.us/data-driven-in...isenhower/291/



































thank you valued poster!


BAHHAAAAAA

why yes there is! thank you for asking!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_law


correct me if i'm wrong but i don't see the word "policy" mentioned anywhere above. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I'll ask again. Name an immigration law that is in affect in this country. The number of green cards issues is determined by the POTUS, not by law. The number of refugees allowed into this country is not set by law, it is set by the POTUS. That is POLICY.

I'll ask again. Name an immigration law that is in affect in this country. The number of green cards issues is determined by the POTUS, not by law. The number of refugees allowed into this country is not set by law, it is set by the POTUS. That is POLICY. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

keep asking. you'll get the same answer


https://www.uscis.gov/laws/laws-regu...ationality-act


The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law.


The INA is divided into titles, chapters, and sections. Although it stands alone as a body of law, the Act is also contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.). The code is a collection of all the laws of the United States. It is arranged in fifty subject titles by general alphabetic order. Title 8 of the U.S. Code is but one of the fifty titles and deals with "Aliens and Nationality". When browsing the INA or other statutes you will often see reference to the U.S. Code citation. For example, Section 208 of the INA deals with asylum, and is also contained in 8 U.S.C. 1158. Although it is correct to refer to a specific section by either its INA citation or its U.S. code, the INA citation is more commonly used.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...us-immigration


The United States has a long history of regulating and managing immigration, dating back to the 1860s. The U.S. Congress — the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States — develops and passes legislation, which the president signs into law, and federal agencies (executive branch) implement legislation.


The primary immigration law today is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the INA). Most immigration-related legislation since then has amended various sections of the INA.


Among the most significant pieces of immigration-related legislation over the last two decades are the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), the Immigration Act of 1990, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), and the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA-Patriot Act).


thank you valued poster!

the house victory was routine and typical for mid terms. what was historic was Obama's shocking losses in his midterms



butt you knew that, right???


Under Obama, Democrats suffer largest loss in power since Eisenhower


thank you valued poster!


BAHHAAAAAA Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Back to Obama. Irrelevant. Let's try to focus on the present.

The vote in 2018 had Democrats on top by 8.6%, almost 10 million votes. The largest margin of victory by Democrats in midterm House races since 1974. Historic no matter how you look at it.

Back to Obama. Irrelevant. Let's try to focus on the present.

The vote in 2018 had Democrats on top by 8.6%, almost 10 million votes. The largest margin of victory by Democrats in midterm House races since 1974. Historic no matter how you look at it. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

did you not just post on the present claiming Trump and the Republicans lost in HISTORIC fashion?


yeah you did.


well they didn't.

keep asking. you'll get the same answer


https://www.uscis.gov/laws/laws-regu...ationality-act


The Immigration and Nationality Act, or INA, was created in 1952. Before the INA, a variety of statutes governed immigration law but were not organized in one location. The McCarran-Walter bill of 1952, Public Law No. 82-414, collected and codified many existing provisions and reorganized the structure of immigration law. The Act has been amended many times over the years, but is still the basic body of immigration law.


The INA is divided into titles, chapters, and sections. Although it stands alone as a body of law, the Act is also contained in the United States Code (U.S.C.). The code is a collection of all the laws of the United States. It is arranged in fifty subject titles by general alphabetic order. Title 8 of the U.S. Code is but one of the fifty titles and deals with "Aliens and Nationality". When browsing the INA or other statutes you will often see reference to the U.S. Code citation. For example, Section 208 of the INA deals with asylum, and is also contained in 8 U.S.C. 1158. Although it is correct to refer to a specific section by either its INA citation or its U.S. code, the INA citation is more commonly used.

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/arti...us-immigration


The United States has a long history of regulating and managing immigration, dating back to the 1860s. The U.S. Congress — the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States — develops and passes legislation, which the president signs into law, and federal agencies (executive branch) implement legislation.


The primary immigration law today is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (the INA). Most immigration-related legislation since then has amended various sections of the INA.


Among the most significant pieces of immigration-related legislation over the last two decades are the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), the Immigration Act of 1990, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), and the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 (USA-Patriot Act).


thank you valued poster! Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

And I repeat -- Trump has taken several actions regarding immigration in this country but has not one law has been passed. All his actions have been via policy.

I am not going to go back to late 2016 to check and see whether or not you predicted Republicans would hold the House. I do not remember a single Trump supporter saying the Democrats would take control of the House in 2016. The House victory for the Democrats was historic. The Senate victory for Republicans was expected, even by me. 33 Senate seats up for reelection, 25 of which were Democratic. Democrats held seats in heavily Republican Montana and WV. Arizona went Democratic. The only race that was remotely a Republican upset was in Florida,a race won by Scott by .13%.

Regarding 2020, in an earlier thread I distinctly remember you stating that Trump would win more electoral votes in 2020 than he won in 2016. You stated he would win all the states he won in 2016 and pick up, in all likelihood, NH and Minnesota. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I said he would win the states he won in 2016. I said POSSIBLE pickups would be NH and Minny. For some reason, you think he’s going to lose Wisconsin, Michigan and Pa because he “barely” won them in 2016. Who will beat him? You don’t have a candidate yet. How can you even have a prediction on those states without a candidate. I can tell you this, none of them has ever won a single state yet. Trump has done it. BYW Speedy, I know you’re an older guy, but it seems you forgot your civic classes in middle school. Our laws dictate immigration. Not policy.

The Senate victory for Republicans was expected, even by me. 33 Senate seats up for reelection, 25 of which were Democratic. Democrats held seats in heavily Republican Montana and WV. Arizona went Democratic. The only race that was remotely a Republican upset was in Florida,a race won by Scott by .13%.

Regarding 2020, in an earlier thread I distinctly remember you stating that Trump would win more electoral votes in 2020 than he won in 2016. You stated he would win all the states he won in 2016 and pick up, in all likelihood, NH and Minnesota. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Which party do you think will control the Senate come 2021?

The 2020 general election should be tougher for Trump than 2016, which he won by astutely concentrating on Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan in the last days of the campaign. It was a lot closer than the electoral college totals would indicate, and Hillary Clinton wasn't particularly popular. While I can't understand why anyone would vote for her, the presumptive nominee Elizabeth Warren inspires a lot of enthusiasm in the Democratic base. And while Trump won't be removed from office, the impeachment process will take its toll. Finally there's more potential downside than upside in the economy from now until election day.