If “whiners” isn’t a category, what is it? The term is as emotionally charged and misleading as the label “dreamers”. Neither term is appropriate to a rational discussion on what constitutes a proper immigration policy.

The illegal children remind me of the guy who drove the getaway car. His excuse was that he didn't know what they were going to do and he actually didn't participate. A good friend of mine's fiance was in that position, he visits her in prison regularly.

I agree, if they can do so without risking being immediately deported to a country they have no ties to and may not even remember.

I agree. What do you think about the term "whiners"? Do you think that puts all of them in their appropriate category?

Of course there is concern. You may not be looking in the right places.

https://immigrationreform.com/2018/01...

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...

Hold on, it was really included as LAW?

Then we should be quoting that law.

Any Amnesty CANNOT STAND! It's in violation of our own laws!

We should do what Canada does

So let these people apply like any other

Let them dream in Canada or australia

A hodge podge including citizenship for those illegals who don't belong here at all is not the middle of anything, and consistency is not "extremism", which is an undefinable smear.

Perhaps Trump's "offer" was not intended to be to the Democrats but to Susan Collins.

I really dislike the word dreamers. They were illegally brought in by illegal parents. None of them dreamed at all

It does not make sense to establish special criteria for whiners. Identifying those who whine does not identify a group based on "selected attributes" having anything to do with their legal status.

There was no contradiction in my post. I did not say to treat people on a case by case basis -- even if it would be done by an objective standard, which it would not be -- based either on whether they are whiners or what Democrats call "dreamers", which is all of them.

I always thought trump could stand in the way to some degree of collectivism. He should just let these illegals go thru the regular immigration system with everyone else. He is caving in to the liberals. Maybe he is afraid the dems will win in 2018 and 2020 and completely undo his agenda

That has always been part of the immigration amnesty deals and has always been ignored.

There are a couple of Democrat senators that may be the dissidents the Republicans need. Joe Manchin has sided with Trump positions already, and West Virginia is so solidly red that he will have to break ranks to stay in place, or change parties. The new Alabama senator, Doug Jones has stated that he intends to vote the way Alabama voters want him to, which means that he too may have to buck Democrat leadership on occasion. If played correctly, McConnell may actually find bipartisan passage of some bills.

I'd be surprised if the GOP bothers to do so even with such a majority. They haven't had the guts to do anything to reduce government in decades.

Me too.

It is also important to note that Rand obeyed the immigration rules when she did so. She didn't conveniently ignore them then petition for lenient treatment afterward.

Agreed.

While its an interesting theory, I think the Republicans lack of progress in many areas (usually due to the Democrats but that fact will get brushed under the rug) is going to bite them hard. Most of the seats which are up are tight races and though Republicans could pick up a few more seats, they still have to deal with the defectors from their own party - Murkowski, McCain, and Collins. Jeff Flake's seat may also flip because of his acrimony toward Trump.

We'll know more in about six months, but while I'd love to see a filibuster-proof majority, I'll say right now I doubt it is going to happen.

If it did, however, the Republicans might be able to get a Balanced Budge Amendment passed and sent to the States. Wouldn't that be a sight to see?

Trump showed that he was willing to accept a middle ground and the Democrats flipped out. And this is where the Republicans can just show the American people that the Democrats aren't interested in anything but the extremes, so we're completely justified in leaving them out in the cold. At least that is what I hope happens.

Please re-read your first sentence; the second part contradicts the first. To identify a group based on selected attributes is to categorize that group. And it’s not “special treatment” to establish separate criteria to deal with this group, since its members differ in many important respects from other illegals who knowingly and voluntarily broke the law by crossing the border.

Just because “progressives” are making ridiculous demands for any and all illegal immigrants, doesn’t mean that rational standards for immigration acceptance or rejection cannot be created and enforced.

I agree that “dreamers” is an inappropriate word for identifying this particular group of illegal immigrants, and I avoid using the term whenever possible.

with ANY AMNESTY we must declare that from this day forward, NOBODY who comes to this country ILLEGALLY (of their own will, or not), can NEVER EVERY Become a citizen of this country! This has to be part of the deal.

They already made a public statement that if we don't get Amnesty, the party may die!

The game of leadership with a wildly varied composition of Americans is always going to be finding the compromise that enough will grudgingly accept. If the GOP gets really lucky and does a respectable job of selling how well the economy is doing (remember, "It's the economy, stupid" worked for Clinton), they could gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate in the Fall. Even if that happens, there will be a range of positions taken by the neophyte GOP senators that won't guarantee Trump will be able dictate what he wants. The ultraconseratives will wail that he's not conservative enough, and Susan Collins will side with the Democrats to say he's being too harsh.