11 thoughts on “Trump expected to propose extending DACA, TPS protections in exchange for wall funding”

  1. Trinity Waters:
    Another story by CNN based on anonymous sources?  Puh-leeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeZ!

    I just might wait to hear what Trump actually does.

    Oh absolutely, but nothing surprises me anymore and I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if it were true. I’m sick and tired of this $@# and I want Trump to be a cold-hearted @#!& on this one.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  2. Didn’t he already offer DACA for the wall, and Dems refused, cuz a lower fed court had stopped him from rescinding DACA?   This wouldn’t even be tempting to them unless SCOTUSrules in his favor on DACA, and I think there’s a good chance they will–but c’mon justices,  get crackin’!

    i dunno.  This is not what I want to hear, but if we could stop the influx once and for all, is it worth it?

    At this point I have no hope really.  We’re in a besieged citadel and we’re outnumbered, we can’t help but hear the sappers chipping at the walls.  How can we be anything but bitter?

    1+
    avatar
  3. If true, it is a brilliant move. He is negotiating in complete transparent public and Chuck and Nancy are going to have to stiff him in complete and transparent public. He is making the same offer he did before.

    If they refuse, he has no choice but, with sorrow, to issue the emergency declaration since the Democrats have abandoned their responsibility.

    Let us see if he issues a timetable.

    BTW, DACA without chain migration for the wall is not a bad deal.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  4. Hypatia:
    This is not what I want to hear, but if we could stop the influx once and for all, is it worth it?

    On the 2018-12-21 Radio Derb, John Derbyshire had a segment titled, “What is the Wall worth?”:

    I cheered on the Wall when Trump put it at the front of his campaign in 2016; and of course we should have a secure barrier to separate us from the semi-barbarous nations to our south, most of which are not so much nations as criminal enterprises.

    Still, I’m starting to worry that Trump’s need for a Wall — and he really does need it, if he’s not to be thrown out of office in 2020 to jeers of derision and hoots of contempt — I’m worrying that this Wall obsession is crowding out real patriotic immigration reform.

    Last week I expressed my fear that the enemy — I mean, the open-borders nation-killers in Congress, the courts, and the media  — might calculate that it would be worth giving Trump a wall, and maybe even four more years in the White House, if, in return, they got a total amnesty for twenty or thirty million illegal aliens, perhaps with expedited citizenship, and big expansions of guest-worker programs, chain migration, refugee settlement, and so on.

    I want to see a wall, but not at that price. In fact, looking through the other end of the telescope, I’m asking myself what price I personally would accept for dropping all talk of a wall.

    Would I give up on a wall in return for universal compulsory E-Verify with severe sanctions on offending employers? Yes, I would.

    Would I give up on a wall in return for a full moratorium on legal immigration, some tiny categories like spouses and dependent children of citizens excluded? I think I might.

    Would I give up on a wall in return for an end to birthright citizenship, the green card lottery, refugee settlement, and asylum — again with a handful of Solzhenitsyn-level exceptions on asylum? Maybe.

    That’s just me opinionating, of course. President Trump doesn’t have the option of giving up on the Wall. He’s too committed to it.

    Those of us pushing for patriotic immigration reform do need to keep these other issues in play, though, and not let discussion of them get drowned out by Wall talk. A Wall would be great; but it wouldn’t restore our national sovereignty or demographic stability by itself.

    3+
    avataravataravatar
  5. or just announce that:

    1) he’s closing the border;

    2) he’s ordering the military to shoot any one attempting to cross;

    3) in any zone where the military has to shoot anyone, he will declare a 1 kilometer buffer zone into Mexico where anything that moves will be targeted;

    4) anyone on this side of the border who interferes will either be shot to stop the interference or will be tried for treason.

    1+
    avatar
  6. ctlaw:
    or just announce that:

    1) he’s closing the border;

    2) he’s ordering the military to shoot any one attempting to cross;

    3) in any zone where the military has to shoot anyone, he will declare a 1 kilometer buffer zone into Mexico where anything that moves will be targeted;

    4) anyone on this side of the border who interferes will either be shot to stop the interference or will be tried for treason.

    You’re such a dreamer. 😉

    2+
    avataravatar
  7. ctlaw:
    or just announce that:

    1) he’s closing the border;

    2) he’s ordering the military to shoot any one attempting to cross;

    3) in any zone where the military has to shoot anyone, he will declare a 1 kilometer buffer zone into Mexico where anything that moves will be targeted;

    4) anyone on this side of the border who interferes will either be shot to stop the interference or will be tried for treason.

    It’s over now and it HURTS to think we had such hope just, like, 40 minutes ago…

    0

  8. drlorentz:

    ctlaw:
    or just announce that:

    1) he’s closing the border;

    2) he’s ordering the military to shoot any one attempting to cross;

    3) in any zone where the military has to shoot anyone, he will declare a 1 kilometer buffer zone into Mexico where anything that moves will be targeted;

    4) anyone on this side of the border who interferes will either be shot to stop the interference or will be tried for treason.

    You’re such a dreamer. 😉

    And under the Swallwell Doctrine, when Governor Newsom ties to interfere, Trump simply nukes Sacramento, plus Pelosi’s and Swallwell’s districts.

    1+
    avatar
  9. I actually agree with Nancy and Chuck that a wall isn’t the most effective way to solve the border crisis. Oh, I don’t think for one second that they actually want to solve it, but even a broken clock is right twice a day. I support Trump in building a wall for symbolic reasons, but I do not subscribe to the delusion that it’s going to make any difference—it may solve some problems for some time, but real and lasting border security is a state of mind that is based on the will and confidence of a country’s leaders and its citizens. A wall isn’t going to stop the Democrat/Republican complex from destroying the country from within. Let’s say Trump actually builds a wall. What’s stopping the next Democrat president from tearing it down? No, our solutions have to be a little more potent and permanent than that.

    1+
    avatar
  10. ctlaw:
    or just announce that:

    1) he’s closing the border;

    2) he’s ordering the military to shoot any one attempting to cross;

    3) in any zone where the military has to shoot anyone, he will declare a 1 kilometer buffer zone into Mexico where anything that moves will be targeted;

    4) anyone on this side of the border who interferes will either be shot to stop the interference or will be tried for treason.

    This is what a serious country would do, but it will never happen because of the bleeding hearts on both sides of the political spectrum. America does not deserve to survive as a country with its current level of stupidity insanity.

    0

Leave a Reply