solishu said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

solishu said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

solishu said:

---

Also, I agree with you in principle, but I believe that at this point there would be tremendous downsides of the kind of zero-tolerance-round-them-all-up-and-send-them-home policy that you're talking about.

---

Again, labels matter. It's not "zero tolerance." It is following the law.

Labeling following the law as zero tolerance implies that some level of law-breaking is ok and should be normalized.

Why should anybody else comply with the law if it's ok for others to flaunt the law?

---

Fine. You can label it whatever you like. "Gold-star-legal-compliance." Whatever. The economic consequences are the ones that will hurt (and again, lead to undermining public support for enforcement in the future, giving cover to future democratic administrations to play fast and loose again with the laws.)

---

It's a very slippery slope to say that we should waive legal compliance because of the economic impact. You could make that case for hundreds of laws.

If you want to do something different than the law, then change the law through our democratic process.

But turning a blind eye to the law just because you like the outcome isn't right.

Selective law enforcement is the issue here, and it applies much broader than just the immigration topic.

---

Aren't we talking about The Dignity ACT?

---

Yes, and I don't support it because it rewards illegal immigration. I plan to resist it through the democratic process.

However, if it passes, then they become legal, and I can make my peace with that and move on.

You know, because I believe in being consistent about following the law.

Based on the info above......

As a stand alone bill..... against it
IF offered as a compromise to get the Save Act passed as is..... could be on board

My reasoning
- Says that it offers extended legal status NOT citizenship. Save Act would prevent them from voting
- Would require background check and $5k+ in fees. Many won't have this and/or won't try. They will be deported anyway.
- Keeps "asylum" seekers on the other side in a secure location where we can keep an eye on them and ultimately reject them if needed vs having to hunt them down.

chjoak said:

---

Based on the info above......

As a stand alone bill..... against it
IF offered as a compromise to get the Save Act passed as is..... could be on board

My reasoning
- Says that it offers extended legal status NOT citizenship. Save Act would prevent them from voting
- Would require background check and $5k+ in fees. Many won't have this and/or won't try. They will be deported anyway.
- Keeps "asylum" seekers on the other side in a secure location where we can keep an eye on them and ultimately reject them if needed vs having to hunt them down.

---

I could warm up to that.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

solishu said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

solishu said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

solishu said:

---

Also, I agree with you in principle, but I believe that at this point there would be tremendous downsides of the kind of zero-tolerance-round-them-all-up-and-send-them-home policy that you're talking about.

---

Again, labels matter. It's not "zero tolerance." It is following the law.

Labeling following the law as zero tolerance implies that some level of law-breaking is ok and should be normalized.

Why should anybody else comply with the law if it's ok for others to flaunt the law?

---

Fine. You can label it whatever you like. "Gold-star-legal-compliance." Whatever. The economic consequences are the ones that will hurt (and again, lead to undermining public support for enforcement in the future, giving cover to future democratic administrations to play fast and loose again with the laws.)

---

It's a very slippery slope to say that we should waive legal compliance because of the economic impact. You could make that case for hundreds of laws.

If you want to do something different than the law, then change the law through our democratic process.

But turning a blind eye to the law just because you like the outcome isn't right.

Selective law enforcement is the issue here, and it applies much broader than just the immigration topic.

---

Aren't we talking about The Dignity ACT?

---

Yes, and I don't support it because it rewards illegal immigration. I plan to resist it through the democratic process.

However, if it passes, then they become legal, and I can make my peace with that and move on.

You know, because I believe in being consistent about following the law.

---

The way I see it, this act is a concession to the reality that enforcement of the law as it stands is economically (and therefore politically) untenable. I do agree with the principle that we should enforce that law, but notice how even in this most immigration-unfriendly of administrations the political costs of doing so have been too heavy to actually do it to the fullest extent.

Quote:

---

The bill rests on four main "pillars":

1. Border Security: Allocates $35 billion for physical barriers, advanced surveillance technology (drones, sensors), and hiring more Border Patrol agents.
Don't we already have this?

2. The "Dignity Program": Undocumented immigrants who have been in the U.S. for 5+ years can apply for a renewable 7-year legal status. To qualify, they must pass a criminal background check, pay $5,000 in restitution fees, and pay all back taxes.
Non-starter. First it amounts to "layaway plan paid amnesty" that there is no way the government will keep track of payment plans. Second, IF this thing passes, that 5 years will lasso all of the Biden crossers. Rewrite it to ten years and a $10,000 fee and you'll thin the herd.

3. Asylum Reform: Creates "Humanitarian Campuses" at the border to process asylum claims within 60 days, aiming to end the "catch and release" practice.
Quit taking border crossers claiming "asylum" beyond one country away like the UN says (if at all)

4. Legal Immigration: Expedites visa backlogs, protects "Dreamers" (DACA recipients), and creates new legal pathways for agricultural and seasonal workers.
The Ag pathways are not that tough to navigate, just ridiculously time consuming. It should be easier to get those, and the best part is they have to go home for a few months, as should the vast majority of work visa holders.

---

If you dig deeper, it is absolutely chock full of loopholes and exceptions to its own requirements and gives a huge amount Olof discretion to future administration officials to simply waive or bypass huge groups of persons or large portions of criterion and doesn't allow for these waivers to be reversed.

It is essentially a giant amnesty bill that even invludes amnesty for recent deportees in effect, and will obviously encourage another massive migration rush, and the first Dem administration that is voted in can use it to throw the doors fully wide open, and legalize tens of millions.

Picard said:

---

Thanks for the informed and compelling argument

---

Why is an informed compelling argument needed? Illegal aliens should not be in this country. What's so hard to understand about that?

The only question is why are some republicans supporting this?

Because all democrats are democrats and so are many republicans.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Here's a novel idea: democrats could just put America first and enforce the law.

---

This. This legislation is entirely unnecessary if they simply do that.

The border is shut down right now and has been for months. Effectively zero incursions or throwbacks by simply enforcing it. So, the only real change here is amnesty for millions of illegals.

Your entire premise is under the assumption that the democrats can be trusted to abide by all of that. They won't. If anything, they will b**tardize it. Stop acting like the dems are reasonable. They lie about everything to further push their terrible cause.

solishu said:

---

The way I see it, this act is a concession to the reality that enforcement of the law as it stands is economically (and therefore politically) untenable. I do agree with the principle that we should enforce that law, but notice how even in this most immigration-unfriendly of administrations the political costs of doing so have been too heavy to actually do it to the fullest extent.

---

How is this administration "the most immigration-unfriendly of administrations"?

Seems that this administration would be better described as "following the law" administration.

chjoak said:

---

Based on the info above......

As a stand alone bill..... against it
IF offered as a compromise to get the Save Act passed as is..... could be on board

My reasoning
- Says that it offers extended legal status NOT citizenship. Save Act would prevent them from voting
- Would require background check and $5k+ in fees. Many won't have this and/or won't try. They will be deported anyway.
- Keeps "asylum" seekers on the other side in a secure location where we can keep an eye on them and ultimately reject them if needed vs having to hunt them down.

---

NGO's would pay the fees.

How about this:

• Deport them all
• End all legal immigration for 50 years
• Put civics and American History back in schools
• Life in prison for illegals convicted of voting in US elections

Dignidad = La Amnestia"

Quote:

---

How is this administration "the most immigration-unfriendly of administrations"?

Seems that this administration would be better described as "following the law" administration.

---

They have yet to articulate why open borders is a good policy for America and Americans.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

How is this administration "the most immigration-unfriendly of administrations"?

Seems that this administration would be better described as "following the law" administration.

---

They have yet to articulate why open borders is a good policy for America and Americans.

---

"Muh vegetable pickers and roofers". These people truly believe that our economy would collapse, without illegals, instead of businesses and technology adjusting. I'm fully convinced the so called "need" for bringing in all of these foreigners is a giant lie that Americans have been fed for years.

Any attempt for a "pathway" must happen AFTER self deportation. Otherwise you're rewarding breaking the law in the first place.

Quadruple the workforce of those hunting down illegals and deporting them, and hold firm to the rule that if you don't self deport you never get to come back legally.

Build the hell out of the wall and the workforce that prevents illegal entry.

Anyone caught even attempting to enter illegally is barred for life from legal entry of any kind.


This is not difficult to regain control of our border. Just requires resolve.

japantiger said:

---

chjoak said:

---

Based on the info above......

As a stand alone bill..... against it
IF offered as a compromise to get the Save Act passed as is..... could be on board

My reasoning
- Says that it offers extended legal status NOT citizenship. Save Act would prevent them from voting
- Would require background check and $5k+ in fees. Many won't have this and/or won't try. They will be deported anyway.
- Keeps "asylum" seekers on the other side in a secure location where we can keep an eye on them and ultimately reject them if needed vs having to hunt them down.

---

NGO's would pay the fees.

How about this:

• Deport them all
• End all legal immigration for 50 years
• Put civics and American History back in schools
• Life in prison for illegals convicted of voting in US elections

Dignidad = La Amnestia"

---

Agree with what you suggest. Would add "End ALL welfare for non-citizens". I just think that would be viewed as an extreme change that would never happen.

no.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

Seems that this administration would be better described as "following the law" administration.

---

They have yet to articulate why open borders is a good policy for America and Americans.

---

"Muh vegetable pickers and roofers". These people truly believe that our economy would collapse, without illegals, instead of businesses and technology adjusting. I

---

They don't actually believe that.

They are doing the exact same thing leftists are doing to western Europe, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with what is good for America.

Quote:

---

The bill is designed as a "grand bargain": it pairs strict border security and enforcement with a pathway to legal status for undocumented immigrants already in the country.

---

There is a "legal" pathway if you are here legally. Just follow this 7 easy step procedure.



Other wise return to your native country and file the proper petitions with the USCIS.

Could not be simpler.

solishu said:

---

You guys do realize that the current status quo means a constant swing between the chaos of a democratic president creating border chaos and a republican president creating interior enforcement chaos?

The immigration restriction provisions in this seems good to me -- better border security infrastructure and more personnel is always welcome. An actual legislative fix to the insane asylum laws that we are currently governed by. Eliminate the "demand side" of mass illegal immigration through universal E-Verify?

It also fixes the labor side of immigration enforcement. You guys know that the construction business would collapse if all the illegal aliens suddenly disappeared. You think home prices are high now? But this law accommodates that reality by allowing the most "harmless" of those illegals, who have been keeping their noses clean and just putting in the hours in the concrete crew, to continue to make those contributions to our economy while requiring a nominal penalty for the fact that they did, in fact, break the law.

We're also, in case you haven't noticed, facing a demographic crisis of declining fertility and an aging population. The dreamer pathway that this provides prevents us from deepening that by shipping off the demographic segment that we need most.

This law contains so many accommodations to restrictionist priorities, and the pro-immigrant provisions are so obviously accommodations to the basic realities (which would prevent a political backlash to restrictionist policies by preventing the downsides from materializing), that this opposition baffles me.

---

I generally agree with this. Population growth decline is a real thing, and the U.S. is only 20-25 years from crossing into a net negative scenario (all things remaining equal). The workforce is already facing a serious retraction because of the Baby Boomer exit. Maybe automation can backfill some of the need if younger generations continue the trend of smaller and delayed family planning, but avoiding a lasting solution is not a solution at all.

I'm mixed on how to address the current situation, but you might need to stomach a tradeoff that strengthens the country's future. As an example, maybe offer a path to amnesty for existing immigrants in return for *somehow* addressing the "whole number of persons" part of the 14th Amendment's census language. Beats me.

BigRobSA said:

---

solishu said:

---

The way I see it, this act is a concession to the reality that enforcement of the law as it stands is economically (and therefore politically) untenable. I do agree with the principle that we should enforce that law, but notice how even in this most immigration-unfriendly of administrations the political costs of doing so have been too heavy to actually do it to the fullest extent.

---

How is this administration "the most immigration-unfriendly of administrations"?

Seems that this administration would be better described as "following the law" administration.

---

That's fine. But it's total gaslighting to pretend that the rhetoric and posture toward immigration as a whole from this administration is not hostile. Sure they have the letter of the law on their side in many of the enforcement actions they've taken, but they have publicized and communicated their positions in a way that makes it clear that they aren't just doing this out of scrupulous adherence to the law but also because they really don't like immigrants. You don't post ASMR videos of immigrants being deported because it's just so "satisfying" to see the principle of rule of law being upheld.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

Quote:

---

How is this administration "the most immigration-unfriendly of administrations"?

Seems that this administration would be better described as "following the law" administration.

---

They have yet to articulate why open borders is a good policy for America and Americans.

---

If this in reference to my defense of the Dignity Act, your reading comprehension sucks. Enhanced border security is always welcome in my opinion.

I don't understand Republicans supporting this. Everyone illegally should go back and then they can reapply for entry in their own country and follow the process. We don't need more laws. Simply execute existing laws we have. That should be the republican platform

A national without borders is not a nation. The rule of law has set America apart from the beginning.

If we ignore both, there will be no country to worry about. This is all by design.

There is not a single Democrat who is for any border security. Let's not pretend.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

A national without borders is not a nation. The rule of law has set America apart from the beginning.

If we ignore both, there will be no country to worry about. This is all by design.

---

I understand and agree, but that doesn't change the reality. Maybe there is some type of agreement that strengthens the law, or the enforcement of it, in exchange for breaking the current stalemate. I doubt anyone would be happy, but would it be better than continuing on the current unsustainable path? As a longtime conservative and husband of a legal immigrant family (lol), I'm at least willing to consider it. I understand the hardline opposition to any form of amnesty, certainly when compared to "open" borders, but that seems unrealistic.

Marvin said:

---

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

A national without borders is not a nation. The rule of law has set America apart from the beginning.

If we ignore both, there will be no country to worry about. This is all by design.

---

I understand and agree, but that doesn't change the reality. Maybe there is some type of agreement that strengthens the law, or the enforcement of it, in exchange for breaking the current stalemate. I doubt anyone would be happy, but would it be better than continuing on the current unsustainable path? As a longtime conservative and husband of a legal immigrant family (lol), I'm at least willing to consider it. I understand the hardline opposition to any form of amnesty, certainly when compared to "open" borders, but that seems unrealistic.

---

Can the dems be trusted to abide by any agreement? No they can't. They need foreigners coming in to prop up their representation numbers because their policies are so terrible.

Marvin said:

---

solishu said:

---

You guys do realize that the current status quo means a constant swing between the chaos of a democratic president creating border chaos and a republican president creating interior enforcement chaos?

The immigration restriction provisions in this seems good to me -- better border security infrastructure and more personnel is always welcome. An actual legislative fix to the insane asylum laws that we are currently governed by. Eliminate the "demand side" of mass illegal immigration through universal E-Verify?

It also fixes the labor side of immigration enforcement. You guys know that the construction business would collapse if all the illegal aliens suddenly disappeared. You think home prices are high now? But this law accommodates that reality by allowing the most "harmless" of those illegals, who have been keeping their noses clean and just putting in the hours in the concrete crew, to continue to make those contributions to our economy while requiring a nominal penalty for the fact that they did, in fact, break the law.

We're also, in case you haven't noticed, facing a demographic crisis of declining fertility and an aging population. The dreamer pathway that this provides prevents us from deepening that by shipping off the demographic segment that we need most.

This law contains so many accommodations to restrictionist priorities, and the pro-immigrant provisions are so obviously accommodations to the basic realities (which would prevent a political backlash to restrictionist policies by preventing the downsides from materializing), that this opposition baffles me.

---

I generally agree with this. Population growth decline is a real thing, and the U.S. is only 20-25 years from crossing into a net negative scenario (all things remaining equal). The workforce is already facing a serious retraction because of the Baby Boomer exit. Maybe automation can backfill some of the need if younger generations continue the trend of smaller and delayed family planning, but avoiding a lasting solution is not a solution at all.

I'm mixed on how to address the current situation, but you might need to stomach a tradeoff that strengthens the country's future. As an example, maybe offer a path to amnesty for existing immigrants in return for *somehow* addressing the "whole number of persons" part of the 14th Amendment's census language. Beats me.

---

We hit record low birth rates and TFR in 2025. Been trending only downward since 2007. It's not going to improve.

I would be ok in making our legal pathways easier to get through if we could ensure no dilution of culture and assimilation as the guiding principle, but that is obviously tough to manage.

On the whole, I would just rather us be like Japan and manage our slow downward trajectory in a noble manner rather than sacrifice the country to third world, mongrel culture which would hasten our demise in a violent manner.

There is no worrying about the future when we allow what has broken the system to exist.

Democrats will never change. We must not capitulate to their lawlessness.

Can any posters, telling conservatives that we should compromise on this, tell us why we should trust the democrats?

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Can any posters, telling conservatives that we should compromise on this, tell us why we should trust the democrats?

---

There is no legislation without compromise.

solishu said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Can any posters, telling conservatives that we should compromise on this, tell us why we should trust the democrats?

---

There is no legislation without compromise.

---

That didn't answer my question. Compromise, just to pass legislation, is useless if you know the democrats won't uphold it when they are in power. The dems reneged after Reagan compromised and gave amnesty. Tell me why conservatives should compromise with a bunch of dirty, lying, communist democrats?

Plus….declining birth rate may be perfect for AI future

KerrAg76 said:

---

Plus….declining birth rate may be perfect for AI future

---

Libs pushed the overpopulation scare for years. They pushed abortion and convinced young American women to not have so many, or any, kids. Now they are pushing the declining birthrate scare to try and import as many 3rd world leeches as possible. The left is disgusting.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

solishu said:

---

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Can any posters, telling conservatives that we should compromise on this, tell us why we should trust the democrats?

---

There is no legislation without compromise.

---

That didn't answer my question. Compromise, just to pass legislation, is useless if you know the democrats won't uphold it when they are in power. The dems reneged after Reagan compromised and gave amnesty. Tell me why conservatives should compromise with a bunch of dirty, lying, communist democrats?

---

Let me elaborate: because the current legal framework sucks. That's the framework that brought us to we are. There needs to be revised legislation or it's just going to be more of the same thing next time a democrat is in the White House. But there is no legislation without compromise.

That's why compromise is necessary.