No, Amnesty is not a part of my offer. It is a 3 year extension of DACA. Amnesty will be used only on a much bigger deal, whether on immigration or something else. Likewise there will be no big push to remove the 11,000,000 plus people who are here illegally-but be careful Nancy!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 20, 2019
January 20, 2019
Did Trump just threaten Pelosi with a "big push to remove the 11,000,000 plus people who are here illegally"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
76 comments:
He also threatened his entire base and his reelection prospects with amnesty.
You’d have to crack down on businesses to put a dent in illegal immigration. The Chamber would be most displeased. They didn’t invest in guys like Ryan and Flake for nothing.
Mitt would go apeshit.
Just let local school systems go bankrupt with educating illegals. I think LA schools are on strike. More of that to come. As we run out of money, Progressives will eventually turn on the illegals.
What about the other 25 million?
Voluntary deportation would be the idea. Otherwise the media get viral sad story click bait.
He was reminding her of the arc of history.
He’s putting the screws to the Speaker of the House. Her continued obstruction is going to wear thin very soon. She does not know how to deal with him.
He also threatened his entire base and his reelection prospects with amnesty.
Depends on what he gets in return. No one really thinks we’re going to deport 11-30 million people.
If he gets permanent barriers and other concessions, who knows? A deal will be made over amnesty some day, it's just a matter of whom you trust to negotiate it.
He is exposing Speaker Pelosi and the Dems as disingenuous and acting in bad faith. Let's see how the Times and Post spin* it.
* I first wrote 'report' but quickly recalled that they don't simply report anything when it comes to Trump.
mccullough, "we" aren't going to run out of money fast enough. Still too prosperous a society. Redistribution is the key... Remember, there's PLENTY of money - it's just in the wrong hands.
Only Nixon could go to China. Only Trump could negotiate Amnesty.
Give us the frigging Wall and let's get this finished.
No, you won't get what you want, or even half of what you want, but you need to stop being a spoiled billionaire 16 year old girl bitching about her sweet 16. Pelosi clearly still is.
Unlike the Democrat bargain, which is do what we say, or you get nothing. The Progressives care so much for the unemployed federal workers that they are holding up the government for chump change.
Go ahead and try to deport them.
Perhaps he can ticket their employers while he is at it, if we are living in fantasyland where this removal doesn't come off in the media as jackbooted thugs.
Perhaps he can send them back on trains, just to make sure there is an easy media comparison.
Likewise there will be no big push to remove the 11,000,000 plus people who are here illegally-but be careful Nancy!
Trump is saying that while he won't initiate a "big push to remove the 11 million", Pelosi's intransigence on the wall may cost the DACA people a guaranteed, worry-free three year window.
Trump is attempting to disrupt the Democrats DACA support.
Trump's position all along was to deport the 11 million people who Trump says are in the country illegally. But Trump didn't do it in his first year, and didn't do it in his second year. and now it is a mere threat. It's been a threat that no one takes seriously.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/trumpometer/promise/1399/remove-all-undocumented-immigrants/
And now, Trump has no good position from which to negotiate. The "mantle" of the shutdown is his, and his alone. He is completely trapped by his promise of a Great Wall. A wall that he promised that Mexico will pay for.
Meanwhile, he has pissed off all the people who could have helped him. Moderates of the GOP have largely left Congress. Mitch McConnell is disgusted and wants nothing to do with the negotiation. Lindsey Graham, who (rightly) declared Trump "a kook" and "unfit to be president" tried his best to work with Trump but has now given up. And as of yesterday, Ann Coulter is leading a wave of immigration hawks against Trump's offer of a deal.
Trump's deal now, is almost literally the same deal that Graham and Durbin were hoping to discuss with Trump when Senators Tom Cotton, David Perdue were summoned to attend as well. That was the meeting that turned into the infamous "shithole countries" meeting. If Trump is now effectively accepting that deal, Cotton and Perdue -- who sacrificed their integrity to cover for the "shithole countries" denial -- have got to be pissed more than anyone, because they sacrificed themselves to prevent that day's deal.
SO the shutdown would have been avoided if the Dems had taken the original deal offered, and won't accept any deal now, and yet Trump owns the shutdown? Who taught you logic, Father Guido Sarducci?
Chuck, we don't read your screeds anymore except to mock them because you have admitted that there is nothing objective in any of your analysis.
I can grant that Pelosi or even Althouse may occasionally have a valid point.
You will NEVER do this for Trump and thus, you are a like a thermometer which doesn't work: useless except for misinformation. Throw it away and get something that works.
So reading you is like reading said thermometer which tells me that the baby is dead even as it goos and kicks.
FIDO, at least he talks about the subject and not just levels personal attacks at people trying to discuss the issue.
Your moral high ground is a swamp.
I read Chuck, fopdoodle extraordinaire, so that I may understand Democrat talking points.
He is an excellent summarizer of each day's points.
Mark scolds while he tells others to be substantive.
Tricky position to maintain, disingenuous ass.
Why shouldn’t we be aggressively deporting the 30 million illegal aliens who are living here, as well as punishing their aiders and abetters who hire them, hide them and defend them?
I mean, it is a threat in the way those "This street watched by neighborhood watch" is a threat. Duh the people in charge of law enforcement might enforce the law.
Bickel, another drive by asshole here to shit on the discussion thread as usual.
GfY Birkel
There will be "no big push" coupled with "Pelosi, be careful." Hmmm. I can imagine ... but, no, no comment.
Stay on topic, Mark, you jack ass.
Follow your own lessons.
Me, I do whatever I want within Althouse's rules.
If I fuck myself it will be terrific.
Mark,
Fine, let's talk issues.
Is
1) getting the DACA kids a three year reprieve
2) getting the Federal Employees to work
3) avoiding any more additional costs to the Federal fisc due to shut down costs
worth
4) One half a day of Federal spending for the Wall, particularly given that Medicaid can't find ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY BILLION DOLLARS in their accounting? Go ahead. Google that last. I dare you.
What 'principle' do you cleave to to justify your intransigence on increasing border security? Try to be rational, persuasive and objective
But let's ask a few questions to see how much good faith you have:
1) Will building a wall make our border more secure or less secure from indigent illegals?
2) Is maintaining a wall easier or harder than maintaining sensors, drones, or satellite photos?
3) Will a wall stop people from entering the country without the intervention of quick response units which are absolutely mandatory for sensors or drones?
4) Which system is less vulnerable to bad weather or malfunction: A Wall or sensors and drones?
5) Which do you think will cost less in the long run: A Wall or the salaries of all these 'quick response teams' which are absolutely necessary to make the 'virtual fence' of the Democrats a reality?
6) Which is easier to 'shut down': a Wall or a drone?
7) What response has Schumer and Pelosi offered to try to move off of this stalemate?
8) What are the 'Democrat' ideas of increased border security?
Don't project. Put down something IN WRITING that Schumer and Pelosi actually offered recently. Trump actually built test walls. What have Schumer and Pelosi offered and what is the price tag on that?
It makes sense that Trump is offering the same deal that they said they wanted plus what he originally said he wanted. He literally can't offer them much more than DACA; he's already giving them pretty much everything. He's been trying to find a way to thread the needle of detentions on the border without the children in cages that Obama let stand for years; he wants a wall and stronger borders.
Besides DACA and amnesty, what can he realistically offer? A cheaper wall, maybe?
Honestly, this is just a reminder that at the time, the left shot a perfectly good compromise that gave them nearly everything in the face because it just might benefit Trump somehow.
That's because the Democrat leaders in the House and Senate have yet to understand that in a compromise, you don't get everything you want while the other side gets nothing. Obama's "I won" statement is the rule of an authoritarian, not a compromiser.
If there is no counter offer from the Dems, they are negotiating in bad faith.
I guess Trump just handed those 11,000,000 votes to someone else.
But they cannot vote.
Democrats assure me no illegal aliens vote.
Hahahahaha
I kill me.
I just saw Pelosi's comment that they won't accept anything less than permanent DACA/TPS along with no wall to the negotiation.
That's not a negotiation. That's a demand; she is making a demand she knows won't fly after being offered a perfectly decent starting point for compromise. But Trump is the unreasonable one?
If he gets permanent barriers and other concessions, who knows?
Indeed. He will basically get the deal Reagan got, except he will make sure funding for the wall is in the bill and start building it. Congress, particularly the Democrats, will finally live up to their promise from decades ago.
But what is really happening is Trump is putting the continued shutdown on the Democrats. He's at the table. He still wants his funding, and $5 billion is a small price to pay. The Democrats can continue to resists, but the people hurting are mostly their base.
She's already had a trip to Puerto Rico. She tried to get away to Brussels. How many more junkets while government employees try to handle loans to make ends meet?
It is insane to just ignore that there are 11,000,000 here illegally.
MayBee,
What about the other 25 million?
The 11 million estimate is a known garbage statistic.
I don't think there's any implied threat to deport those people. It's an implied threat that those people may stop thinking so favorably of Democrats if Democrats continue to put the interests of future illegals who are not here over the interests of those already here.
Remember, for any illegals already here, as well as all legal immigrants, the wall is absolutely meaningless. What matters to illegal immigrants now is the ability to stay here. Democrats putting 100% of their effort into an anti-wall message have nothing to offer these people. This would seem to partly explain the massive jump in approval Trump has experienced among Hispanics since the shutdown began.
Birkel: Maybe he's hoping to get fact checked again and have the fact checker say: "Trump's such a liar. The problem is actually worse than he says!" before they realize that was a bad idea and they delete the fact check.
Or he's using the conservative, garbage statistic just to ensure no one else pulls it out to debunk a higher number.
Or it was the first number he thought of.
Trump's approval among Latinos is up 19% so cyrus83 probably has a good point.
Trump is valuing those already here ahead of those yet to arrive.
Good catch.
More genius at work.
The offer of a DACA extension supports something that, supposedly, the Democrats have wanted in exchange for wall funding: trump is doing pro level negotiating on behalf of the dems, making them even more the obstructionists.
The 11 million threat: there’s no law protecting illegal people from being illegal. That’s the current law: trump can decide to aggressively enforce the law...or not. It’s up to Pelosi.
No, it's a warning to Pelosi of negotiable limits to normalize illegal aliens. The people will not be mass deported, but the scope of their civil rights relative to citizens and legal immigrants is in jeopardy because of "Americans second" and "immigration reform" voices.
Mark, I am interested in hearing your responses to FIDO's questions.
"Likewise there will be no big push to remove the 11,000,000 plus people who are here illegally-but be careful Nancy!"
Trump is playing "Gotcha". There is a very old golf joke that goes something like this:
A golfer loses some big bucks at a match. He explains to his friend that the other guy gave him 3 strokes a side but wanted 2 "gotchas". He didn't know what that meant but accepted. On the second tee, just as he started his downswing, the other guy yells "GOTCHA!". He hooks his ball into the woods and loses the hole. So his buddy asks, when did he use the second gotcha? "That SOB never did. The match was over at the turn."
Pacwest, Birkel and others have made it clear I am unwelcome and will have to wade through a shitshow of personal attacks to find the few substantive comments.
Police your own before you ask for substance from the other side.
Perhaps he can send them back on trains,
We have in the past, often at the request of the Mexican government.
Add some substance and quit your bellyaching.
You are a troll who yells racist.
Birkel said...
MayBee,
What about the other 25 million?
The 11 million estimate is a known garbage statistic.
Birkel is right. Although the politicians (AND their donors and lobbyists) don't want people to know it. They know the American people would rebel against them for not doing anything about it. It's because they need people to clean their toilets and mow their grass. (https://www.mediaite.com/tv/kelly-osbourne-if-we-kick-out-all-latinos-who-is-going-to-be-cleaning-your-toilet/) They have been lying about the number of illegals here for years.
I'm a Trump supporter and I like debating who disagree with me. One of the most rewarding developments of the Internet era, for me, has been debating people in comment sections. Am I the only one who enjoys testing my assumptions against those who disagree? (Of course, in my mind, I never fail such tests or lose a debate. I either chose my debate topics very wisely or I'm deluded.)
Chuck is perpetually angry because he predicted a Hillary landslide.
Chuck said:
My point, and my question to all of the Trump fans is this: Trump as the Republican nominee will result in Hillary Clinton winning the Presidency of the United States and holding that office until Justice Scalia is 85 years old. Hillary could nominate replacements for Ginsburg, Breyer, and one or two Republicans. We could end her term with a Supreme Court comprised of six young liberals who might serve for 25 years.
If Trump is the Republican nominee, Hillary Clinton wins by 350 electoral votes.
wendybar,
And everybody knows the 11 million is nonsense.
Every small town across America now has a supermercado.
That's not possible if it's just 11 million.
Hell, California probably has close to 11 million by itself.
But now it is Minnesota, Maryland, Tennessee, and Colorado.
And it is small towns everywhere that people feel the culture shifting.
Matthew Sablan said...
I just saw Pelosi's comment that they won't accept anything less than permanent DACA/TPS along with no wall to the negotiation.
That's not a negotiation. That's a demand; she is making a demand she knows won't fly after being offered a perfectly decent starting point for compromise. But Trump is the unreasonable one?
The Democrats are just being hard negotiators, right? Ever hear anybody claim that he is a great negotiator, that he's been doing negotiations for 30 or 40 years? And that you sometimes have to walk away from a negotiation, to get the best deal?
It's what Scott Adams describes in his usual admiring tone, "The Big First Demand... A good negotiator starts with an aggressive first demand so there is plenty of room to negotiate toward the middle. President Trump started his campaign promising to deport every undocumented immigrant. That first offer was so extreme that he has plenty of room to negotiate toward a reasonable center, such as allowing DACA folks to stay.
"Likewise, the 'Wall' idea is seen by many Trump critics and supporters alike to mean a solid wall for the entire border with Mexico. This was never a practical idea, and candidate Trump said so directly at least once, but he wisely didn’t emphasize the full range of solutions for the border. Now it will seem totally reasonable to build a solid wall wherever border security is most problematic, so long as it is not extended to the entire border."
Scott Adams was telling conservative Republican immigration hawks; You fucked up; you trusted Trump.
https://blog.dilbert.com/2017/09/14/i-explain-the-persuasion-president-trump-is-using-on-the-wall-and-daca/
Go back and read that old blog post by Adams. It is terrific. He is prescient, about what would happen with this negotiation. (Although I have all along been much the same; that Trump would end up trading away invaluable Republican principles for getting something he could triumphantly call a "wall" in campaign rallies.) And it also displays the utter mendacity of Trump's phony immigration-hawk language on the campaign trail to win the Republican nomination.
"Hey I'm a nationalist and a globalist." Donald Trump to the Wall Street Journal, April, 2017.
Mark: Pacwest, Birkel and others have made it clear I am unwelcome and will have to wade through a shitshow of personal attacks to find the few substantive comments.
Police your own before you ask for substance from the other side.
Stop whining like a little bitch about "personal attacks". (Injured amour propre is Chuck's shtick, and it's boring enough when he does it.) Sling it back, shrug it off, and carry on. It's no one's responsibility to make you, or me, or anybody else "feel welcome", or to "police" anything.
Everybody here gets "personally attacked", and "personal attacks" in no way prevent you from posting "substantive comments". I can't think of a single instance of complaints about "personal attacks" here that doesn't translate to a timely flounce-out consequent to realizing that one's canned talking points and foot-stamping aren't impressing anyone.
Chuck: ...trading away invaluable Republican principles...
You still haven't explained why being sold out by Republicans is preferable to being sold out by Trump. If I'm gonna get boned anyway, what difference does it make? It makes even less sense to assume I'd care about Trump selling out the "invaluable principles" of the pack of whores selling me out.
Chuck, racist fopdoodle extraordinaire, believes the Democrats hold the winning hand. He believes this because reasons and Orange Man Bad.
Geometric logic.
Chuck is a Leftist talking point machine.
Is Chuck made of carbon paper?
You don't deport 11 million- you make it onerous on the employers. Right now, we really don't enforce the employment laws- it is already illegal to employ someone who doesn't have a valid and legal SSN. The government knows with high certainty who does and does not possess such a number. As for the people who work off the books, it is still illegal to not pay FICA. This is the basis of Trump's threat, and, yes, it is a threat.
Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard said...
Chuck: ...trading away invaluable Republican principles...
You still haven't explained why being sold out by Republicans is preferable to being sold out by Trump. If I'm gonna get boned anyway, what difference does it make? It makes even less sense to assume I'd care about Trump selling out the "invaluable principles" of the pack of whores selling me out.
For Democrats, and fans of Trump, it might not matter. But I am still nursing the grudge left over from the Republican pirmaries. Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio told Trump that he's not going to build a great wall, and Mexico was not going to pay for it, and Trump would not be deporting 11 million. They were right; Trump was lying.
We could go back and forth about "amnesty," but much is going to be written about it this week and you should read for yourself. You won't accept anything that I tell you.
But moreover -- and this is the further point to be made about Trump's Saturday speech -- is the wall itself. We shouldn't get too far into the weeds on "amnesty" when the real headline is that Trump is now confessing to the nation that there won't be any "great wall." Trump has retreated, to the moderate/consensus/Congressional position that some barriers, of differing types and materials, may be built at various strategic positions on the border. All at taxpayer expense of course. Requiring Congressional action, regulatory approval, environmental impact statements, public hearings, etc. All the things that "Campaign Trump" sneered at.
I think that now, the Democrats will be holding out until sufficient national attention can be drawn to that fact; that Trump's idea of a wall is dead. There will be no wall; not unless Trump agrees to define it down to a kind of nothingness insofar as it will be no more than what Congress would have agreed to in 2013.
That's the imperative; to hand Trump a direct, unmistakable personal defeat. On "The Wall." Like Trump's forced admission that Obama was born in the U.S., period.
Chuck, racist fopdoodle extraordinaire, thinks the guys who never tried and therefore never failed are better than the guy he assumes will fail because that first group of guys won't support the second guy.
Fucking racist Democrats like Chuck are dull.
Angle-Dyne, Samurai Buzzard your 11:04AM is priceless. I don't know why he is still insisting with his BS.
Chuck: For Democrats, and fans of Trump, it might not matter.
The position I outlined doesn't depend on one's being a Trump fan or a Democrat. But, whatever.
But I am still...
Chuck, we already know what you think. That isn't what I asked. If you want to talk to yourself you can do it without the pretense that you're responding to another poster.
Unknown @11:54:
Thanks.
Birkel said...
MayBee,
What about the other 25 million?
The 11 million estimate is a known garbage statistic.
Hey, maybe we should put that question on the census!
Mark,
You are most welcome to answer my substantive and non personal attacking questions.
FIDO,
And give up the flounce?
At long last have you no decency?
Trump should take Robert 'Fake Hispanic and 1%er' O'Rourke's film and start offering 'Wall' consessions to the Greens. Have the Army Corps of Engineers ready to bulldoze some of these 'majestic' spots.
Trade some of the 'pretty places' for Walls in some of the less Beta(sic) places.
Yancy,
I am not sure about that employment law thing.
Our local Wendy's was almost purely Hispanic 6 years ago. So much so that the manager needed to be bilingual
Now, American local teenagers are manning the grills and grease traps.
A mere anecdote, but something noticeable.
Chuck, immigration enforcement used to be a strong plank in the Republican platform. Why did you foresake these so called principles out of mere Trump hatred?
It is like a a 16 year old girl leaving a prom in a loud histrionic snit because someone wore the same dress.
Speaking of flounces
FIDO said...
Chuck, immigration enforcement used to be a strong plank in the Republican platform. Why did you foresake these so called principles out of mere Trump hatred?
I am not forsaking "immigration enforcement." What makes you think that I am? Trump is the one proposing an amnesty deal now.
For my part, what I am saying now is what I have said all along. On immigration, I am really interested in, and sympathetic to the views of Ann Coulter. The big difference is our respective views of Trump. She wanted Trump, to build a Great Wall over Democratic objection. I opposed Trump, because I feared that Trump would be so devoted to his silly "Wall" ideas, that he would cave to Democratic demands on other things in order to get a Wall.
My idea of a "wall" is what Congress had already been doing, quietly and without a lot of debate, for decades before 2016. My idea of immigration reform is no amnesty or anything that looks like amnesty. But that's just me. Democrats are going to have a very different idea, and legislation will never perfectly reflect my dreams.
Trump seems to be trading something that is silly and was never a big issue (modest placements of varying types of border barricades) for something that is monstrously huge (amnesty for millions of illegals).
I hated Trump's campaign sloganeering when it only meant Trump's lying to get elected. I hate Trump's campaign sloganeering even more, when it means important and ill-advised policy compromises.
I feel like Ann Coulter is now just another woman abused by Trump, and that I had been there before she went on her first date with him, saying, "Don't do it! He's a liar and an abuser and he will hurt you!"
The 11 million threat: there’s no law protecting illegal people from being illegal. That’s the current law: trump can decide to aggressively enforce the law...or not. It’s up to Pelosi.
What you conveniently ignore is that Congress limits by statute and funding the number of illegal immigrants Trump may deport each year.
Chuck is a disinvited racist smear merchant.
Well it wasnt in 1980 and 1984 when amnesty was part of the platform
"No, Amnesty is not a part of my offer. It is a 3 year extension of DACA. Amnesty will be used only on a much bigger deal, whether on immigration or something else. Likewise there will be no big push to remove the 11,000,000 plus people who are here illegally-but be careful Nancy!"
So Trump imagines that he met with the GOP types and in the process "negotiated" with the Dems. Then he punches out a "straw man" comment invented inside his limited brain. Donald is exposing his grandiose but totally unrealistic belief as to his powers. No, he can neither grant amnesty nor deport 11 million people.
This may not have occurred to you, Gadfly, but he's out maneuvering Pelosi. In the end the house will come to the table and Trump will get his 5 bil.
You conveniently dsmiss that he has offered to negotiate in good faith three times with the speaker and three times he was dismissed out of hand. The speaker owns the shutdown now.
gadfly is consumed by hatred.
He projects that righteous hatred about his own failures to external factors.
gadfly will never forgive Trump's successes.
"Pacwest, Birkel and others have made it clear I am unwelcome and will have to wade through a shitshow of personal attacks to find the few substantive comments."
I was simply interested in your answers to Birkel's questions. They are valid ones and should be on everyone's mind that is interested in the immigration issue. I am sorry you consider discussing your opinions on a national issue as a personal attack. It's a blog for goodness sake.
Dearly deported Chuck believes his opinion trumps that of Border Patrol.
...and apparently that of a good number of congress-folk, some he clearly views as "better than Trump"
But yeah..his grudge based fart-in continues.
“Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi are captive to the most radical, extreme strains of their base, to the far Left,” Cruz said. “That’s the reason why Schumer and Pelosi have forced a shutdown.”
“It’s important to note Schumer and Pelosi’s objection to the wall is not substantive. It’s not based on policy,” Cruz added, noting that both Democrats have previously voted for border fencing.
“Their problem is political. Their base hates Donald Trump, and so politically, Schumer and Pelosi are forcing a shutdown because they want to appease their base,” he said.
Post a Comment