Printable View
It's strange how you guys don't understand that they were here legally. You liking our not liking the reason why does not change the facts. Sane people accept the fact that Biden was the president even if they didn't like him.
The bullshit didn't take 10 days but it's still bullshit.
[QUOTE=ZenMaster;15039676]
Doesn't matter how you try to deflect, they introduced a new pathway to citizenship just last year. Here's Chuck Schumer laying it out clearly that all illegal immigrants should get citizenship.
[video=youtube_share;grwnbk6lxdo]https://youtu.be/grwnbk6lxdo[/video]
A blanket rule like that would open up for all kinds of human trafficking and fraud. Also, you shouldn't be rewarded for breaking the law for 10 years just because you got married.
I was saying that the Democrat party is in demise due to plummeting birth rates and all those illegal immigrants who will be deported instead of counting towards seats in congress and potentially as future voters.[/QUOTE]
Pathway to citizenship has been talked about for lord knows how long. Perhaps 30yrs ago? It has never gotten through and been nothing other than a talking point.
So, should anyone who marries a U.S. citizen get citizenship, in your opinion? Or must you be born in the USA for citizenship?
There are already significantly more democrat voters than Republican. Independents are the ones who decide elections. Illegal immigrants don't vote in significant numbers, as you have been trying to claim. As for being future voters, the bill guaranteeing them citizenship has to actually get through Congress. Democrats don't have 60 votes in the Senate to get it through, and they haven't tried to push such a bill through. If they may in the future, is your entire argument based on "coulda woulda should"?? You're grasping at straws here, boogeyman.
The next time Democrats hold the Senate, the filibuster rule will be gone and every Dem wish list item from making DC and Puerto Rico states to packing the Supreme Court to giving all illegals a very short path to citizenship to universal healthcare will pass the Senate. I can only hope that either of the House/Presidency is in Republican hands but we all know, it goes in waves - whichever party wins the Presidency gets the House and Senate for the first 2 years. God help this country then.
Even Fetterman is saying that Republicans should "carve out" the filibuster to re-open the government. Such a STUPID idea - that opens the door to use it for whatever. I thought he'd be the only sane Democrat left (like Sinema and Manchin) but apparently not.
[I]THE LONGER IT STAYS SHUTDOWN, THE MORE IT BENEFITS US!!![/I]
Chuck Schumer
[QUOTE=bladefd;15039829]Pathway to citizenship has been talked about for lord knows how long. Perhaps 30yrs ago? It has never gotten through and been nothing other than a talking point.
There are already significantly more democrat voters than Republican. Independents are the ones who decide elections. Illegal immigrants don't vote in significant numbers, as you have been trying to claim. As for being future voters, the bill guaranteeing them citizenship has to actually get through Congress. Democrats don't have 60 votes in the Senate to get it through, and they haven't tried to push such a bill through. If they may in the future, is your entire argument based on "coulda woulda should"?? You're grasping at straws here, boogeyman.[/QUOTE]
It's like it's impossible for you to imagine things being different in the future than they are today. Around 80% of dems want illegal immigrants to get a pathway to citizenship and that's a lot of support, hell wasn't it Obama who tried writing an executive order on it? Even in recent years dems have been trying to get bills passed on it.
Just like pathway to citizenship has been talked about for perhaps 30 years, so has mass deportation, and all of the sudden a guy came around who's up for it. Stating that something won't happen because it's been talked about for a long time doesn't make sense, e.g once upon a time illegal immigrants weren't allowed to vote in local elections, but now they are.
[QUOTE]So, should anyone who marries a U.S. citizen get citizenship, in your opinion? Or must you be born in the USA for citizenship?[/QUOTE]
I never said you have to be born in the US to get citizenship, immigrants becomes Americans all the time through regular and legal channels. I think that anyone married to a US citizen should be able to apply.
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15039783]It's strange how you guys don't understand that they were here legally. You liking our not liking the reason why does not change the facts. Sane people accept the fact that Biden was the president even if they didn't like him.
The bullshit didn't take 10 days but it's still bullshit.[/QUOTE]
Ok, they came in legally under a temporary order that stated something was wrong in their own country and these people can't live there. Now it's been deemed that temporary order no longer is needed because whatever was wrong in Venezuela and Haiti is fixed and they can go and live there again, so they need to leave legally as well, right?
Democrat Chris Coons
"The shutdown is our only moment of leverage'
[QUOTE=ZenMaster;15039914]Ok, they came in legally under a temporary order that stated something was wrong in their own country and these people can't live there. Now it's been deemed that temporary order no longer is needed because whatever was wrong in Venezuela and Haiti is fixed and they can go and live there again, so they need to leave legally as well, right?[/QUOTE]
You may as well give up. Everyone is wrong sometimes. Or in your case, all the time. It's OK.
[QUOTE=ZenMaster;15039914]Ok, they came in legally under a temporary order that stated something was wrong in their own country and these people can't live there. Now it's been deemed that temporary order no longer is needed because whatever was wrong in Venezuela and Haiti is fixed and they can go and live there again, so they need to leave legally as well, right?[/QUOTE]
i wish you could see from a 3rd party POV how much of an imbecile you look like to everyone else
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15040081]You may as well give up. Everyone is wrong sometimes. Or in your case, all the time. It's OK.[/QUOTE]
I don't know if you were tricked into thinking these people would magically get to stay in the US under a new administration or if you just lied about it, but fact remains that the the temporary protective order is no longer:
[QUOTE] After reviewing country conditions and consulting with the appropriate U.S. government agencies, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem determined [B]that Venezuela no longer meets the conditions for its designation for Temporary Protected Status[/B] (TPS), and that the termination of the 2023 Venezuela TPS designation is required as it is contrary to the national interest. [B]On October 3, 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the termination to take immediate effect.[/B] TPS beneficiaries who received an Employment Authorization Document on or before February 5, 2025, with a ‘Card Expires’ date of October 2, 2026, will maintain work authorization until October 2, 2026.
Separately, Secretary Noem published her notice to terminate the Venezuela 2021 designation, which is effective on Nov. 7, 2025, at 11:59 p.m. See Termination of the 2021 Designation of Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status, 90 Fed. Reg. 43225 (Sept. 8, 2025).[/QUOTE]
[URL="https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status"]https://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/temporary-protected-status[/URL]
Real Men Loves Illegals refuses to admit he's wrong. That's the first tell that he can't be taken seriously and deserves to be treated like a child.
Move over existence is pain..... we now have TDS is pain
I see we are still arguing with facts.
[QUOTE=rmt;15039884]The next time Democrats hold the Senate, the filibuster rule will be gone and every Dem wish list item from making DC and Puerto Rico states to packing the Supreme Court to giving all illegals a very short path to citizenship to universal healthcare will pass the Senate. I can only hope that either of the House/Presidency is in Republican hands but we all know, it goes in waves - whichever party wins the Presidency gets the House and Senate for the first 2 years. God help this country then.
Even Fetterman is saying that Republicans should "carve out" the filibuster to re-open the government. Such a STUPID idea - that opens the door to use it for whatever. I thought he'd be the only sane Democrat left (like Sinema and Manchin) but apparently not.[/QUOTE]
If anyone has actually broken the filibuster in recent years, it has been Republicans under Mitch McConnell. But something you will never speak out against. Instead, you're more worried about "coulda woulda shoulda." :facepalm
[QUOTE=ZenMaster;15039911]It's like it's impossible for you to imagine things being different in the future than they are today. Around 80% of dems want illegal immigrants to get a pathway to citizenship and that's a lot of support, hell wasn't it Obama who tried writing an executive order on it? Even in recent years dems have been trying to get bills passed on it.
Just like pathway to citizenship has been talked about for perhaps 30 years, so has mass deportation, and all of the sudden a guy came around who's up for it. Stating that something won't happen because it's been talked about for a long time doesn't make sense, e.g once upon a time illegal immigrants weren't allowed to vote in local elections, but now they are.
I never said you have to be born in the US to get citizenship, immigrants becomes Americans all the time through regular and legal channels. I think that anyone married to a US citizen should be able to apply.[/QUOTE]
It's impossible for you to see things being the same in the future because you're the boogeyman. Partisan boogeyman who doesn't realize that the economics of Republicans and Democrats doesn't actually differ very much.
Did you know that for 2021-2023, Democrats held house/senate/presidency majority? That was 2yrs ago. Do you think the party changed significantly from 2yrs ago?
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15040135]I see we are still arguing with facts.[/QUOTE]
Must be sad having a mind like this where the facts are laid out for you and you have to resort to argumentative tactics of a 10 year old. Fact is that all those people now have to leave and no judge will try and block it as being illegal, because the Supreme Court has already said it isn't because it's not longer a TPS country. And if they don't leave, then they're illegal aliens who will be hunted down by ICE and deported.
If you want to make a coherent argument as to why these people should get to stay you can go ahead and make it instead of acting like a child.
[QUOTE]It's impossible for you to see things being the same in the future because you're the boogeyman. Partisan boogeyman who doesn't realize that the economics of Republicans and Democrats doesn't actually differ very much.
Did you know that for 2021-2023, Democrats held house/senate/presidency majority? That was 2yrs ago. Do you think the party changed significantly from 2yrs ago?[/QUOTE]
If things were looking to be the same I'd argue it, but the people with a mindset to vote for democrats are currently having a lot less babies than the people voting for republicans, so things will definitely change in the future and it's why dems were desperately trying to get as many foreigners into the country as possible last time they held office. E.g the fertility rate in California is down more than 25% since 2008 when it was 2.1, today it's below 1.5.
[video=youtube_share;hrOTC3sxwQA]https://youtu.be/hrOTC3sxwQA[/video]
10 year-olds are capable of reading facts, like: the immigrants were here legally and then Trump had the law changed so that he can deport them" and processing said information. You are not. 10 year-olds are smarter than you.
[QUOTE=bladefd;15040215]If anyone has actually broken the filibuster in recent years, it has been Republicans under Mitch McConnell. But something you will never speak out against. Instead, you're more worried about "coulda woulda shoulda." :facepalm[/QUOTE]
Your memory appears to be slipping:
1. An earlier post where you claimed that Biden needed 60 Senate votes to UNDO Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts when I asked why Dems didn't if these tax cuts were such an abomination to them. If Republicans needed only majority to ENACT them (and in 2025 - continue them), then surely Biden could have UNDONE them with simple Senate majority when Dems owned Congress and Presidency. As if Manchin and Sinema were enough to get to 60 - lol. That post was weak, but I didn't have time to comment back then.
2. Harry Reid [B][U]first[/U][/B] broke the filibuster - McConnell just extended it to include Supreme Court justices.
AI Overview
Harry Reid is not known for filibustering, but rather for a significant procedural change he orchestrated as Senate Majority Leader in 2013, often called the "nuclear option". Frustrated by Republican obstruction of President Obama's judicial nominees,[B] Reid used a simple majority vote to eliminate the need for a 60-vote threshold to end a filibuster for most executive and lower-level judicial appointments[/B]. This move lowered the confirmation threshold from 60 to 51 votes, but still allowed for filibusters of Supreme Court nominees and legislation.
What it was: The "nuclear option" was a procedural vote that changed Senate rules to remove the 60-vote requirement for cloture (ending a filibuster) on presidential nominations, except for Supreme Court justices.
Why it happened: The decision was a direct response to what Democrats saw as excessive obstruction by Republicans in the confirmation of President Obama's nominees.
Consequences: While the change allowed for more nominations to be confirmed with a simple majority, it was controversial and led to a precedent that was [B][U]later[/U][/B] used by Republicans to eliminate the Supreme Court filibuster as well.
Legacy: Reid's move is considered a landmark event in modern Senate history, fundamentally altering the chamber's dynamics and foreshadowing further changes to the filibuster rules
[QUOTE=Real Men Wear Green;15040240]10 year-olds are capable of reading facts, like: the immigrants were here legally and then Trump had the law changed so that he can deport them" and processing said information. You are not. 10 year-olds are smarter than you.[/QUOTE]
Trump didn't change the law anymore than Biden did.
Biden changed the law to designate Venezuela as a TPS country and the immigrants from there came in legally under the temporary order.
Trump changed the law to remove the designation of Venezuela as a TPS country, so the temporary order for those immigrants to stay in the US is no longer in effect and they are illegal if they stay.
Those are the official facts and like you said yourself they aren't citizens.
Day 30 of the Democratic shutdown and no further voting will be done this week.
:facepalm
[QUOTE=rmt;15040241]Your memory appears to be slipping:
1. An earlier post where you claimed that Biden needed 60 Senate votes to UNDO Trump's 2017 Tax Cuts when I asked why Dems didn't if these tax cuts were such an abomination to them. If Republicans needed only majority to ENACT them (and in 2025 - continue them), then surely Biden could have UNDONE them with simple Senate majority when Dems owned Congress and Presidency. As if Manchin and Sinema were enough to get to 60 - lol. That post was weak, but I didn't have time to comment back then.
2. Harry Reid [B][U]first[/U][/B] broke the filibuster - McConnell just extended it to include Supreme Court justices.
AI Overview
Harry Reid is not known for filibustering, but rather for a significant procedural change he orchestrated as Senate Majority Leader in 2013, often called the "nuclear option". Frustrated by Republican obstruction of President Obama's judicial nominees,[B] Reid used a simple majority vote to eliminate the need for a 60-vote threshold to end a filibuster for most executive and lower-level judicial appointments[/B]. This move lowered the confirmation threshold from 60 to 51 votes, but still allowed for filibusters of Supreme Court nominees and legislation.
What it was: The "nuclear option" was a procedural vote that changed Senate rules to remove the 60-vote requirement for cloture (ending a filibuster) on presidential nominations, except for Supreme Court justices.
Why it happened: The decision was a direct response to what Democrats saw as excessive obstruction by Republicans in the confirmation of President Obama's nominees.
Consequences: While the change allowed for more nominations to be confirmed with a simple majority, it was controversial and led to a precedent that was [B][U]later[/U][/B] used by Republicans to eliminate the Supreme Court filibuster as well.
Legacy: Reid's move is considered a landmark event in modern Senate history, fundamentally altering the chamber's dynamics and foreshadowing further changes to the filibuster rules[/QUOTE]
1) Senate would have to overcome filibuster through reconciliation if they wanted to reverse taxcuts with less than 60 vote majority. Democrats didn't have 60-vote majority but didn't even have enough votes for reconciliation for Harris to be tiebreaker. The Democrat majority couldn't go for reconciliation then without 50 votes. I've no idea what your point is here. Republicans had Vance do tiebreaker vote after going through reconciliation for big beautiful bill, which passed the taxcuts.
2) I forgot about Reid. So, I believe Republicans had refused to pass any Obama nominee for courts after he won the second term election. Reid broke the filibuster by changing the rules, much like McConnell in 2017.
It still doesn't overtake the fact that you're more worried about "coulda, woulda, shoulda" than what has actually happened.
In order for any of the claims you made ("every Dem wish list item from making DC and Puerto Rico states to packing the Supreme Court to giving all illegals a very short path to citizenship to universal healthcare will pass"), Senate Democrats would need 60-vote unity to pass all those things or break filibuster through reconciliation & Democrat VP votes it through. In either situation, Democrats would need a majority in the Senate, House, and VP to be democrat.
TL; DR:
So, here's the procedural breakdown of options to break filibuster:
1) 60-vote majority ends filibuster and gets through
2) Lacking #1, you can use reconciliation to get through. Reconciliation requires at least 50 senators. If you have 51+ votes, you don't need VP to break tie
3) If you can get to 50 votes for reconciliation but can't reach 51+, then VP breaks the tie
Big Beautiful Bill required #3 to pass (yes, Republicans resorted to reconciliation). Ending taxcuts under Biden in 2021-2023 would require 50 senators for reconciliation, which they didn't have. Manchin and Sinema wouldn't budge, which left Democrats with 49 Senators. Without reconciliation, a simple majority cannot end taxcuts.
These are the facts. Something your partisan mind cannot comprehend.
Lmao at anyone caring about a government shut down.
If you rely on the gov you a beyatch!!!!!
lol at conservatives caring about a government shutdown.