over 100K deported so far

Absolutely. Who's going to work at Mexican restaurants? It's going to change things that affect all of us but we can't tolerate illegal labor.

 

why not focus energy there and then let those people use the process that is fixed. like the guy before him tried to do with bipartisan support before the skidmark blew it up

 

You guys are so reliable. You always leave out 'illegal'.

 

Since Nationally crime has been dropping for years, what concerns for security are Cons addressing exactly?

 

The dems were hilarious. Celebrate illegals crossing the border then, as an election is nearing, propose something to address it.

 

it's who is going to work at all restaurants. I can tell you it is impacting decisions today with respect to opening business in sw florida due to inability to get back of house labor in Naples. Utility contractors are losing good people who have been with them for years as the family left Florida.

you should go spend a little time in Immokalee just talking to people. Your horizons may be broadened. Where you are birthed doesn't determine your character.

 

Gun nuts say crime has dropped because the number of guns has increased.

 

Being undocumented in the US is a civil misdemeanor. Make them pay a fine and create a Gang of 8 style plan that allows them to stay legally while paying for A guest worker visa. The labor becomes legal and it's relatively efficient.

 

"Tighten down on" legal immigration is simply a more positive framing for opposing legal immigration.

 

Seems like they should focus on dangerous criminals since, I assume, everyone would want them out

 

Restricting isn't the same as opposing. If I slow the flow of water, I'm not stopping it.

 

That is an absurd definition. By that logic, nobody opposes anything, some people just want to cut things to non-existent. Favoring heavy restrictions on something is an act of opposing that thing.

 

So, if you're in favor of any kinds of enhanced gun regulations, you want to ban all guns?

 

Best advice I can give you is to not engage that poster. Won't ever answer a question and will obfuscate on and on and then change the subject when they are inevitably losing the argument. Better to just laugh at them and move on like you are watching monkeys throw poop at each other in the zoo.

 

That has literally been the Republican claim for years.

But, banning something is a specific policy proposal. It would be reasonable to say that supporting tons of regulation to restrict gun ownership means that you oppose unrestricted gun ownership. If I put on a regulation that said that you were only allowed to own 1 gun, most people wouldn't think that was a proposal by somebody that supported broad gun ownership.

 

I know and it's stupid logic, right?

OK, republicans oppose unrestricted immigration. That is correct.

 

I think it's entertaining to interact with people who think crazy thoughts.

 

Can you point out a single time in which you have opposed that logic in that context?

Regardless, if the US government says that gun manufacturers can only produce 10k guns per year, I'd call that opposing gun ownership.

No, they oppose heavily restricted immigration and want even less of it.

 

So you won't/can't address the question posed?

 

I don't think I've been involved in gun discussion here. I suspect we'd be mostly on the same side.

I believe you are mistaken or at least overstating the republicans position on immigration. There is no reason for republicans to oppose legal productive immigrants.