Next post
The House and Senate Democrats do not care that the government is shut down. Nor do they care about the 800,000 federal employees who have been without pay since January 1, 2019. What they DO care about is thumbing their nose at Trump even as we now see that they were for Border Security and against illegal immigration, until Trump came along.
As Deanna wrote here, what Trump is offering is quite the deal.
His offer ALSO includes
3 years provisional status to current DACA recipients (700,000 of them)
3 years provisional status to about 300,000 TPS recipients
Yet Nancy, Dick Durbin, and all the rest of the Democrats screamed NO! before they even knew what offer was on the table.
And what is one the table very closely mirrors the BRIDGE Act from two years ago. And who was the co-sponsor with Senator Lindsey Graham on that legislation? A Democrat Senator named Dick Durbin (D-Illinois).
We must move on the Bridge Act quickly to protect DREAMers. https://t.co/k7ew0sQ3Lr
— Dick Durbin (@DickDurbin) December 11, 2016
Given Durbin’s stompy-footed NO tantrum yesterday and today regarding Trump’s proposal, this next tweet of his isn’t aging well at all.
The BRIDGE Act would ensure that millions of DREAMers remain in this country while we do our work in the House & Senate on immigration.
— Dick Durbin (@DickDurbin) January 4, 2017
Hey Dick, you aren’t working right now, you are throwing a tantrum. Barely two years ago you were ALL IN to keep DACA going and protect all DREAMers. But now you could care less because it’s Trump not Obama? Wow. Really not a good look for you dude!
Aspiring Presidential candidate Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) is on the defensive because of her pro-wall and border security stance in 2008.
As a member of the House, Gillibrand opposed amnesty for undocumented immigrants, called border security “a national security priority” and voted to increase funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Now, however, she supports immigrants rights (as in, illegal immigrants rights are more valuable than those here LEGALLY), and wants ICE abolished. Because, FEELINGS!
So, border security is bad because people might be inconvenienced? Border security and walls strategically placed mean the U.S. is a big ole meanie to those trying to game the system and waltz into our country ILLEGALLY??
Asked about her previous stance on immigration and former opposition to amnesty, Kirsten Gillibrand says, "I would tell voters, 'look at my heart, see who I am.' I believe I have the courage and the compassion and fearless determination to do what's right" https://t.co/kljcbS9MBX pic.twitter.com/FJbm1EQmUO
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) January 20, 2019
Doing what is right evidently DOESN’T include doing what is right for the 800,000 federal employees by coming back to the negotiating table. Instead, her idea of what is right is marching in lockstep off the cliff with Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
It’s obvious that Kirsten and the rest of the Democrat idiots in DC don’t want to pay attention to the 2017 Doctors Without Borders report that the White House has cited. One that states that over 30% of women who treck through Central America and Mexico to get to the U.S. border are sexually assaulted at some point along the way. This is the full report.
Dick and Kirsten aren’t the only ones who thought illegal immigration was wrong, so did Chuck Schumer. In fact, he said so on multiple occasions.
But now that it’s Trump, standing up for Americans and those who work to come to our country LEGALLY is bad. Illegal immigration is the bees knees don’tcha know?
Marta is absolutely correct. The Democrats irresponsible refusal to negotiate and even attempt to meet Trump halfway is no one’s fault but their own.
Furthermore, their two-faced stances on comprehensive immigration reform is and should haunt them for a very very long time.
Welcome Instapundit Readers!
Feature Photo Credit: Pixabay, cropped and modified
No, they were for illegal immigration before Trump. The were just following a deceptive bait-and-switch strategy. Obama’s partial crackdown was a temporary show to dupe gullible Republicans into a repeat of the 1986 amnesty. If they supported fencing a few years ago it was to deflect from measures that would have been more effective.
Now they’re just completely out.
They were not for border security and against illegal immigration. They may have talked a good game, but the understanding by both sides of establishment politics was that you can talk a good game, even pass legislation, but border security was just security theater and there was no desire to block low-skill workers from coming into the country.
The Great Clarifying continues…
[…] this makes me so angry. We have the media and our leftist “betters” telling us that the border is not the big deal we think it is. We shouldn’t be worried about drug traffickers or terrorists slipping […]
3 Comments