world

Trump holds the line on immigration as bipartisan plan emerges

34 Comments

A group of U.S. Senate Republicans and Democrats promoted an immigration proposal on Wednesday to step up border security and protect young illegal immigrants, but its prospects appeared uncertain as President Donald Trump urged Congress to support a tougher measure.

The developments underlined the difficult path any immigration plan faces as Washington remains starkly divided on one of Trump's signature issues. Congress has repeatedly tried and failed to overhaul immigration policy over the past decade.

The new bipartisan plan would protect from deportation 1.8 million immigrants, known as "Dreamers," brought into the United States illegally as children, according to Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the senators who crafted the plan.

Graham said the parents of the Dreamers, also in the country illegally, would get no such safeguards, a concession to the White House.

Democrats and some Republicans want to provide legal status for the Dreamers. Senate legislation that Trump supports would protect the Dreamers and give them a path to citizenship, but he also is seeking to scale back legal immigration, a red flag for many lawmakers. The bipartisan plan does not embrace Trump's call to significantly cut legal immigration levels, according to senators involved in the discussions.

The bipartisan proposal would open the door to building at least part of a wall along the U.S.-Mexican border that Trump has called for as a candidate and as president.

It would provide $25 billion to bolster border security, Graham said. That could pay for additional border patrol officers, fencing and electronic surveillance, among other options that have been widely discussed among lawmakers.

In a statement released by the White House, Trump urged the Senate to support legislation offered by Republican Senator Chuck Grassley that would also scale back two immigration programs that bring more than 300,000 people into the United States each year.

Grassley's bill would restrict the ability of U.S. residents to bring family members from overseas and end a visa lottery program aimed at bringing in more immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa and other countries with low U.S. immigration rates.

"I am asking all senators, in both parties, to support the Grassley bill," Trump said.

Republican Senator Jeff Flake, one of the bipartisan plan's architects, said he would try to advance the bill despite Trump's opposition.

"He can veto it or he can sign it. But we've got to pass it," Flake told reporters.

Democrats said Trump's demand was frustrating efforts to reach a narrower deal they could support. Republicans control the Senate 51-49 but immigration legislation would need 60 votes to pass, meaning some Democratic support is required.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, speaking on the Senate floor, said, "President Trump is trying to force his hard-line immigration agenda down the throats of the American people." He called the Grassley bill "extreme."

Trump in September announced he was rescinding the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, created in 2012 under his Democratic predecessor President Barack Obama, that protects Dreamers from deportation and offers them work permits. About 700,000 are currently protected by the DACA program.

Those protections are due to start expiring on March 5, but federal judges have blocked Trump's bid to end DACA while litigation over the matter continues.

If the bipartisan immigration plan passes the Senate, it faces an uncertain fate in the House of Representatives, where Republicans hold a larger majority. House Speaker Paul Ryan has said he will not bring up a bill for a vote if it does not have Trump's support.

Ryan said on Wednesday the House "clearly" must address legislation next month to deal with the Dreamers. He told reporters Trump "did a very good job of putting a sincere offer on the table."

The White House said on Wednesday it also opposes another bipartisan immigration measure proposed by Senators John McCain and Chris Coons, saying it would boost illegal immigration and fail to fix other immigration practices opposed by Trump.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2018.

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

34 Comments
Login to comment

Chain immigration and the visa lottery must be in the bill. It’s non-negotiable.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The master negotiator doing what he does best: derailing negotiations to satisfy the barely-literate, disgracefully ignorant minority of people that support him.

Parw back chain migration and scrap the visa lottery. There is no harm in having a merit based system.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

protect young illegal immigrants

this is the problem, you can not award criminals for breaking the law it never works. send them out to go through the proper process. every other country does

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Trump already blamed the Dems for blowing up the "deal" before negotiations had begun. He doesn't want a solution, he wants to bait the Dems and make them look bad, while sabotage a deal by insisting on absurd demands.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Parw back chain migration and scrap the visa lottery. There is no harm in having a merit based system.

Calls Trump and his supporters scum of the earth in one breath, and in the next apes exactly what President Trump is trying to do.

Oh dear....

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

you can not award criminals for breaking the law it never works

I beg to differ. Harriet Tubman, Oskar Schindler, Rosa Parks, Nelson Mandela. What do all of these people have in common? At one point they were considered "criminals" for breaking the law and fighting back against unfair laws.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Trump broke the law by not renting to black Americans. He became President.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Trump broke the law by not renting to black Americans. He became President

He didn’t break any laws and If you have lived in NYC during the 70’s and 80’s it was understandable. Race wasn’t the factor, but drugs and the mafia were.

Trump already blamed the Dems for blowing up the "deal" before negotiations had begun.

Yes, because the Dems could care less about the dreamers. First the offer was 800K and then he went up to 2 million almost legalized and the Dems still said, No? These are THE most ignorant and diabolical people on the planet. Because they want to use DACA as a campaign attack pitch, the Dems would rather dig in, make these people’s lives miserable and hope they can gain traction in the midterms and use it to demonize the GOP. Stupid! If the Dems don’t want that generous offer and I really don’t want Trump to even do that much, but he’s willing to come to the middle and the Dems would go for anything, so then the DACA kids will just have to suffer. The Dems had an offer, they don’t want to fund the wall, end chain migration, end the visa lottery program, then so be it. Leave the dreamers where they are.

He doesn't want a solution,

He wants a solution, the Dems don’t want one.

he wants to bait the Dems and make them look bad, while sabotage a deal by insisting on absurd demands

They already look bad, even a lot of dreamers don’t understand why the Dems won’t take this deal. Their loss, Trump can wait, but the dreamers......

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

He didn’t break any laws and If you have lived in NYC during the 70’s and 80’s it was understandable. Race wasn’t the factor, but drugs and the mafia were.

He didn't break any laws? Then why was he sued by the DoJ? Why did he fight the case for two years before settling?

Race wasn't a factor? Why were blacks but not whites turned away?

https://www.npr.org/2016/09/29/495955920/donald-trump-plagued-by-decades-old-housing-discrimination-case

Hilarious that someone who refuses to accept the fact that Trump used race to discriminate in renting calls anyone else ignorant.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

He didn't break any laws? Then why was he sued by the DoJ? Why did he fight the case for two years before settling?

Easier to settle than to drag your name through the mud, paying out costly court costs, attorney fees, pay and get it over with, doesn’t mean a person is guilty and doesn’t mean a person is racist.

Race wasn't a factor? Why were blacks but not whites turned away?

Proably because you had a lot of Blacks slinging dope in areas that were controlled by the Colombo crime family. Frank Lucas controlled these areas, over saturated the market, so the majority of dealers in those areas were blacks, most of the buyers were white, most crack users were black, in many of the abandoned buildings that were squatters that were near his properties were a mixture of people. So with all these factors in mind, I would have done the same. It’s not about race in hatred because of a persons color and sadly, the people that were the perpetrators just happened to be black.

Hilarious that someone who refuses to accept the fact that Trump used race to discriminate in renting calls anyone else ignorant.

It’s amazing to me how libs just see color at every single angle and are quick to point out other people’s racism, but afraid to look in their own backyard.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

There is a proper process to go through, send them out and have them go through it like I did to live in Japan

1 ( +2 / -1 )

the Dems could care less about the dreamers.

They do care to some extent, then.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It’s amazing to me how libs just see color at every single angle and are quick to point out other people’s racism, but afraid to look in their own backyard.

Exactly. Just look at the Democrat-controlled inner city hellholes where they keep the black population in poverty by offering them a nanny state. All designed to keep them voting Democrat year after year.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

They do care to some extent, then.

About winning elections, yes, they do.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Exactly. Just look at the Democrat-controlled inner city hellholes where they keep the black population in poverty by offering them a nanny state. All designed to keep them voting Democrat year after year.

I can play that game too.

Exactly. Just look at the Republican-controlled southern states hellholes where they keep the white population in poverty by offering them a nanny state. All designed to keep them voting Republican year after year.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

interesting. Where are these Republican controlled southern states?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The Dreamers are saying that they don't want to be made into hostages for white supremacy. They are better Americans than Trump and the Republicans will ever be.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Easier to settle than to drag your name through the mud, paying out costly court costs, attorney fees, pay and get it over with

Oh, so he was worried about this. Why did he fight the case for two years?

, doesn’t mean a person is guilty and doesn’t mean a person is racist.

You're correct. Refusing to rent to people based on the color of their skin does mean a person is racist.

Wow. Just effing wow.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

He didn’t break any law

Of course he did. Discriminating against color in housing is against the law. The end.

I would have done the same.

Then you would be engaging in illegal discrimination against blacks as well. The end.

controlled by the Colombo crime family. Frank Lucas controlled

You keep repeating this as if it has any bearing on a housing discrimination case. It doesn't. It's just what you say to yourself to justify your illegal discrimination habits, as if you get some kind of free pass. You don't.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The Dreamers are saying that they don't want to be made into hostages for white supremacy.

The dreamers ain't got a say in this, they are not citizens, but they do want the Dems to take the deal, better than nothing.

They are better Americans than Trump and the Republicans will ever be.

Ok, that is your personal opinion and not everyone agrees with that. I think if anyone should be considered for legalization are the people that have followed the system and earned their rights to be American.

You're correct. Refusing to rent to people based on the color of their skin does mean a person is racist.

No, doesn't mean you are a racist person at all. If I own a cake shop and don't want to make a cake for a gay couple because It violates my religious principles and I still serve gays, but just believe that marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't mean I am homophobic. It just means, I draw the line when it comes to marriage. Libs try so hard to make everything about race.

Of course he did. Discriminating against color in housing is against the law. The end.

No, he didn't, even courts make mistakes, there is no way that the man is a racist, but as I said before, I totally understand why he did what he did.

Then you would be engaging in illegal discrimination against blacks as well. The end.

Sorry, but no, I would not, if I would not let someone move into my residence based on a fear that the individual is a drug dealer regardless of color, I would not be engaging in any racial biases behavior.

You keep repeating this as if it has any bearing on a housing discrimination case.

It does and you and I don't know all the small details surrounding it.

It doesn't. It's just what you say to yourself to justify your illegal discrimination habits, as if you get some kind of free pass. You don't.

I am not trying to get anything, but it doesn't matter what others might think, I have lived in NYC, I have family and I know what it was like in the 70's and 80's and it was not a fun place at all and as I have been saying repeatedly, Trump from what I know had more than enough reason to deny these people, his property, his right. The end.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Where are these Republican controlled southern states?

Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Louisiana . . .

2 ( +2 / -0 )

well the law does not agree and cake bakers, shops and hotels have been prosecuted for refusing to serve gay people or allow them to stay at a hotel.

If the intent to refuse service is because they harbor gender prejudices, it's wrong, but if it a private company, they don't have to take anyone in and if you don't like it, there are thousands of cake shops or hotels that will take you.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Ruling from the Supreme Court

The law says that if you open a shop on Main Street or anywhere else, you can’t pick and choose to whom you sell your products

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/15/what-colorado-baker-gets-wrong-gay-wedding-cake-supreme-court

2 ( +2 / -0 )

There is a path to citizenship for all illegals.

  • Go back to the original country

  • Visit the US embassy in that country.

  • File for a non-work Visa to visit the USA

  • Get a job ... as you file for a green card

  • Work in the USA for the necessary number of years

  • Get a green card

  • Start studying to be a citizen and take the citizen test.

BAM, they are a naturalized citizen.

Or they could file for asylum with Japan which has much worse odds, it seems.

The USA really needs to end automatic citizenship just based on the location of birth alone. There needs to be a legal residency requirement in the USA for at least 1 parent. If both parents are there illegally, no citizenship for their children. If 1 is here legally, green card or citizen is fine, then the child gets citizenship but should have to claim it between their 18 and 21st birthdays.

I'd also end dual-citizenship and bringing more than 1 person more every decade from "the homeland."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Trump holds the line on immigration as bipartisan plan emerges

Bravo. Finally, this is what leadership looks like.

President Trump gave Congress to fix DACA and come up with a comprehensive immigration bill. When March 5th comes and goes, POTUS Trump needs to issue an EO to not renew expiring DACA green cards and immediately deport those whose cards have expired. This process continues until all non-citizen DACAs + any illegal family members are deported.

In addition, any benefits like welfare, food stamps, free housing, secondary education, etc., be terminated on the date the EO is issued, which should encourage significant self-deportation. . . .

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Bass: No, he didn't.

Yes, he did. The company policy was that if a black man asked about rentals, to say they were full. Very much against the law.

Sorry, but no, I would not

If you did what Trump did, yes, you would.

but it doesn't matter what others might think, I have lived in NYC, I have family and I know what it was like in the 70's and 80's

Great, I'll have to hit you up for pizza recommendations sometime. As for real estate, I'm going to have to fall back on my real estate finance degree, my status as a licensed agent, and my experience in real estate.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Someone's ignorance of 14th Amendment jurisprudence is on full display.

I always try to give liberals a pass on that, ignorance is not their fault.

The law says that if you open a shop on Main Street or anywhere else, you can’t pick and choose to whom you sell your products

Not entirely.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/colorado-gay-wedding-cake-supreme-court

Yes, he did. The company policy was that if a black man asked about rentals, to say they were full. Very much against the law.

Could be, but you also don't know what was reported or said about the problems NYC had during the times, we don't know beyond that, but trump had every right to protect his investment given the climate and sadly, he probably profiled, but the drug epidemic was so systemic, I probably would have done the same thing, meaning, I would be more cautious and really do a background check to make sure, but background checks weren't like today. Remember, we are talking about a man that allowed a deranged Omarosa to live in the White House, racist, give me a break!

If you did what Trump did, yes, you would.

Depends.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bass: Could be

Nope, it was. Trump settled and agreed to stop his racist policy of denying blacks housing. Thank God, right?

the problems NYC had during the times

The law does not read, "You cannot discriminate based on color, unless you are in New York and there are drugs, in which case you can exclude all blacks from your building."

Depends.

Nope. Textbook case. If a black man asked if rentals were available, the doorman would say NO. If any other race asked, they were told YES. They would mark applications with C for "colored" so the people at the office knew to not rent to them. You might think that's a great idea, but it's textbook illegal.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Nope, it was. Trump settled and agreed to stop his racist policy of denying blacks housing. Thank God, right?

It wasn’t racist. But I get it, like little kids when libs can’t get their way, they have a temper tantrum and will run to file a lawsuit to twist the arm and to force people to comply. Yes, that’s the right thing to do, even if it’s against their will.

If you compare New York in 2011 to New York in 1990, it seems hard to believe that it's the same city. In the 1970s, '80s and early '90s, New York was viewed as one of the world's most dangerous metropolises -- a cesspool of violence and danger depicted in gritty films like "The Warriors" and "Escape From New York." Friends who lived here during that time talk of being terrified to use the subway, of being mugged outside their apartments, and an overwhelming tide of junkies. Thirty-one one of every 100,000 New Yorkers were murdered each year, and 3,668 were victims of larceny

You guys just don’t know.

The law does not read, "You cannot discriminate based on color, unless you are in New York and there are drugs, in which case you can exclude all blacks from your building."

If you feel that your property is in jeopardy or individuals are threatening your livelihood, yes, you can, but then again, if you have the ACLU breathing down your back and trying to make you out to be a racist, then it’s better to settle otherwise they will drag it on and on and on $$$

Nope. Textbook case. If a black man asked if rentals were available, the doorman would say NO.

Understandable at that time.

If any other race asked, they were told YES.

A lot of Blacks in those days were on government assistance, would trash the property, do drugs, sell drugs, commit acts of violence more than any other race, so if Trump was being cautious as a result, he had every right to be and if he profiled, it can’t be helped, if you have problems with the same group of people constantly, you are going to be a lot more skeptical, most people would, it has nothing to do with hate. Again, I’ve been around racists, interviewed them on several occasions and Trump doesn’t even come close to what we call an outright radical racist. He may be loud, at times rude and insensitive, but a racist? Doesn’t fit the classic profile at all.

They would mark applications with C for "colored" so the people at the office knew to not rent to them. You might think that's a great idea, but it's textbook illegal.

Not entirely, but yes, I do agree that if you think that People making a problem for you and more of the same ethnic background, you will be more cautious as well, especially if you had numerous of bad experiences.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Of course it's racist. Trump put a "blacks not allowed to rent here" sign on his property. The government stepped in and ended his discrimination.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

bass4funk

It wasn’t racist. But I get it, like little kids when libs can’t get their way, they have a temper tantrum and will run to file a lawsuit to twist the arm and to force people to comply. Yes, that’s the right thing to do, even if it’s against their will.

If the laws are broken then it was racist. The laws are needed to protect those who would otherwise suffer at the hands of those who don't want to follow those laws.

The New York City Human Rights Law is one of the most powerful anti-discrimination laws in the country, far stronger than either federal law or most state counterparts. Its emphasis is on maximizing accountability and on creating a real deterrent to discriminatory conduct.

There are no excuses for people who don't want to uphold those laws.

So much of your previous comment is just downright racist, too many too list.

for instance

"A lot of Blacks in those days were on government assistance, would trash the property, do drugs, sell drugs, commit acts of violence more than any other race, so if Trump was being cautious as a result, he had every right to be and if he profiled, it can’t be helped, if you have problems with the same group of people constantly, you are going to be a lot more skeptical, most people would, it has nothing to do with hate. "

I was in NY a lot in the 1970's/1980's/1990's and my family lived in New Jersey. I didn't see the level of "black negativity" you have frequently quoted in your endless defense of Trump on this point. I spend time in Harlem too. I had no problems on the subway even very late at night.

You guys just don’t know.

But I do, I was there!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

bass4funk

please refresh your memory,

The New York Human Rights Law (NYHRL) is article 15 of the Executive Law (which is itself chapter 18 of the Consolidated Laws of New York) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of "age, race, creed, color, national origin, sexual orientation, military status, sex, marital status or disability" in employment, housing, education, credit, and access to public accommodations. The law was originally passed in 1945 as the Law Against Discrimination, and was the first of its kind in the United States.It is enforced by the New York State Division of Human Rights.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pretty cut and dry. Could be used as a case study in discrmination laws.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If you feel that your property is in jeopardy or individuals are threatening your livelihood, yes, you can, but then again

There's that ignorance of 14th Amendment rearing its head again.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites