• Trump calls for DACA fix, still wants wall in bipartisan immigration talk
    12 replies, posted
Multiple source story, title from old [url=http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/09/politics/white-house-congress-lawmakers-immigration-daca/index.html]CNN[/url] article which was clipped due to not meeting posting standards. [B]Trump just held an extraordinary public negotiation with Congress on immigration[/B] [quote]President Donald Trump said in an wild, freewheeling public meeting with lawmakers on Tuesday that he wants to enact bipartisan immigration reform, which he called a "bill of love," that both secures the border and resolves the fate of young unauthorized immigrants whose temporary protection from deportation is expiring. "Maybe we can do something," Trump said. "We have a lot of good people in this room, a lot of people that have a great spirit for taking care of people we represent." In the highly unusual, 45-plus-minute negotiations that aired on news networks afterward, a bipartisan group of lawmakers debated whether to enact a two-phased approach to immigration reform, in which the first component resolved the soon-to-be terminated Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program and the second tackles broader reforms to the US immigration system. [url]http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-daca-immigration-reform-2018-1[/url][/quote] [B]Trump Appears to Endorse Path to Citizenship for Millions of Immigrants[/B] [quote]WASHINGTON — President Trump on Tuesday appeared to endorse a sweeping immigration deal that would eventually grant millions of undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, saying he would be willing to “take the heat” politically for an approach that many of his hard-line supporters have long viewed as unacceptable. The president made the remarks during an extended meeting with congressional Republicans and Democrats who are weighing a shorter-term agreement that would extend legal status for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children. Mr. Trump has said such a deal must be accompanied by new money for a border wall and measures to limit immigrants from bringing family members into the country in the future, conditions he repeated during the meeting on Tuesday. [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/09/us/politics/trump-daca-immigration.html[/url][/quote] The meeting/debate was all televised but I only caught the ass end of it. I feel like that's something they should do more often, at least we'll have the politicians on the record when they lie through their teeth. Trump and the republicans seemed open to a good DACA bill but were unwavering on having security attached to it, including [I]The Wall.[/I] Trump said the cost figures for the wall were bullshit and that it doesn't need to span the whole border, just certain parts, and that we can also just fix up existing wall. Trump said he's cool with keeping the immigrants here but we gotta have security too. Also said if they can hammer through this issue they'll be open to talking about comprehensive immigration reform soon. I personally think that a whole length wall is stupid, but letting Trump build a few miles worth somewhere in the desert to stroke his ego while fixing up some existing infrastructure and funding better security measures would be a fair compromise if the democrats can get some decent immigration reform out of it. But I'm cautiously optimistic.
not mentioned: the 400 pages worth of hand scribbled riders gop lawmakers will also insist on cramming into the new legislation, then crying "but they didn't want to compromise!" when the democrats oppose any additional riders that will surely be brought up
What the fuck? Aside from “the wall” it sounds too good of a compromise to be true. What’s the catch?
[QUOTE=OvB;53038464] I was gonna include articles from the big three, CNN, MSNBC, Fox. But Fox's article is about how the democrats supported a wall when [URL="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/01/09/dems-change-tune-on-border-wall-after-backing-barrier-under-obama.html"]Obama wanted one[/URL], but not anymore. And MSNBC's article is about how The wall [URL="http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-3rd-century-solution-21st-century-problem"]is shit.[/URL][/QUOTE] None of those sources are allowed in Polidicks but the MSNBC article isn't nearly as bad as Fox's article, which has the audacity of comparing two wildly different proposals and suggesting that because the Democrats supported one years ago that they are hypocrites for not supporting the other proposed by the White House. As far as I'm aware the Democrats have never been against any physical border, they just oppose a useless boondoggle. The MSNBC article isn't just about how the wall is shit (which itself is true and I'm not sure why you take issue with it) but the apparent conflicting information being given by the administration on who exactly is going to be paying for it. Again, neither of them are allowed in this section, but this is a good example of times when the truth isn't "in the middle". [QUOTE=AlbertWesker;53039427]What the fuck? Aside from “the wall” it sounds too good of a compromise to be true. What’s the catch?[/QUOTE] There is no way amnesty actually passes. A Democrat would have a hard time convincing Congress to go along with it, a Republican has no chance in hell. Realistically some sort of border security bill (that may or may not include a wall) will be passed in exchange for permanently protecting Dreamers from deportation, which would still be a fantastic deal for the right.
He does know he just ordered the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of refugees back to countries that are war torn or cartel ruled hellholes right?
[QUOTE=Sableye;53039683]He does know he just ordered the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of refugees back to countries that are war torn or cartel ruled hellholes right?[/QUOTE] Where at?
[QUOTE=Raidyr;53039644]None of those sources are allowed in Polidicks but the MSNBC article isn't nearly as bad as Fox's article, which has the audacity of comparing two wildly different proposals and suggesting that because the Democrats supported one years ago that they are hypocrites for not supporting the other proposed by the White House. As far as I'm aware the Democrats have never been against any physical border, they just oppose a useless boondoggle. The MSNBC article isn't just about how the wall is shit (which itself is true and I'm not sure why you take issue with it) but the apparent conflicting information being given by the administration on who exactly is going to be paying for it. Again, neither of them are allowed in this section, but this is a good example of times when the truth isn't "in the middle". There is no way amnesty actually passes. A Democrat would have a hard time convincing Congress to go along with it, a Republican has no chance in hell. Realistically some sort of border security bill (that may or may not include a wall) will be passed in exchange for permanently protecting Dreamers from deportation, which would still be a fantastic deal for the right.[/QUOTE] Yeah I didn't use them as sources. Both articles are shit and not talking about the topic. The CNN one was the only one of the big three that talks about the threads topic. The topic being the live meeting. I already said the wall is shit. If you think I'm trying to defend the wall by saying an article that criticizes it is shit, well that's not what I'm doing. Admittedly I forgot to check the articles with the checker. My B. Though the articles you take issue with were never intended to be considered Sources. More like the opposite. It's been awhile since I've posted here. I'll check them when I got the time. [editline]9th January 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;53039683]He does know he just ordered the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of refugees back to countries that are war torn or cartel ruled hellholes right?[/QUOTE] I don't think that's happened yet but I might be wrong
[QUOTE=OvB;53039841]Yeah I didn't use them as sources. Both articles are shit and not talking about the topic. [/QUOTE] First, how is the MSNBC article shit? I made the case for why the Fox one was so you don't have to. But more importantly, why include them in your op at all if they aren't talking about the topic? I never inferred that you were trying to defend the wall, but I am interested in why you think the article is bad.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;53039857]First, how is the MSNBC article shit? I made the case for why the Fox one was so you don't have to. But more importantly, why include them in your op at all if they aren't talking about the topic? I never inferred that you were trying to defend the wall, but I am interested in why you think the article is bad.[/QUOTE] Neither of them were on topic. Like this conversation.
[QUOTE=OvB;53039841] I don't think that's happened yet but I might be wrong[/QUOTE] ya he declined to renew the TPS status for the over 200,000 el salvadorian refugees this week, last week he ended protection for 46,000 Hatians, , 1000 sudanese, and 2500 Nicaraguans and very likely 86,000 hondurans next week when their renewal is due
After checking the sources with the mediabiasfactchecker as per the section rules, it seems CNN is no-longer considered a unbiased source. As a result, the section from that article has been clipped. Business Insider and NYTimes are still considered center-left with high factual reporting and are thus allowed. Thanks to Radyr for reminding me to follow the rules I'm supposed to enforce.
[QUOTE=OvB;53039977]After checking the sources with the mediabiasfactchecker as per the section rules, it seems CNN is no-longer considered a unbiased source. As a result, the section from that article has been clipped. Business Insider and NYTimes are still considered center-left with high factual reporting and are thus allowed. Thanks to Radyr for reminding me to follow the rules I'm supposed to enforce.[/QUOTE] I wasn't bothered particularly that you included CNN, I was just saying that you didn't have to use any of the sources, but I can see why you did now, thanks for clarifying in PM's. I can be challenging sometimes because despite a website being biased or of mixed credibility, they can still release stories that are entirely factual. I know I've been prevented from making a thread, or having to find an alternative source many times because despite saying the exact same thing and not having a particularly biased headline, it goes against the section rules. Frustratingly, a lot of right-wing sources in particular have Highly Factual ratings but lean Right instead of Center-Right and are thus unusable.
I feel like the factual rating should be more important than whatever the bias rating is but whatever, that's outside the scope of this thread.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.