Dems have no leaders. Even they know it.

[fishbane]

50 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

No we didn’t agree on that. 

Back to the burner account? Which party do you think gains seat(s)/electoral vote(s) through apportionment because of illegal immigrants?  And how many seats/votes are gained?

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, fishbane said:

Back to the burner account? Which party do you think gains seat(s)/electoral vote(s) through apportionment because of illegal immigrants?  And how many seats/votes are gained?

So you don’t think there are any states (blue or red) that are replacing people leaving with unlawful immigrants?  

[Caveira]

3 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Back to the burner account? Which party do you think gains seat(s)/electoral vote(s) through apportionment because of illegal immigrants?  And how many seats/votes are gained?

How could you truly know their goals.   They don’t even admit they opened the boarder.  

[Offthemat]

8 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Lets also remember that the last administration tried to pass a massive and comprehensive immigration reform bill.

A new law wasn’t needed, a different President solved the problem. 

[fishbane]

5 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

So you don’t think there are any states (blue or red) that are replacing people leaving with unlawful immigrants?  

If you are unable to answer the question which party benefits from illegal immigrants through apportionment by gaining extra congressional seat(s)/electoral vote(s) then maybe we are in agreement after all that it's unclear.

[fishbane]

6 minutes ago, Caveira said:

How could you truly know their goals.   They don’t even admit they opened the boarder.  

Go back to your burner account and answer the question I asked.  Which party benefits through apportionment gaining extra seats/electoral votes due to illegal immigrants?

[JimmySpeaks]

7 minutes ago, fishbane said:

If you are unable to answer the question which party benefits from illegal immigrants through apportionment by gaining extra congressional seat(s)/electoral vote(s) then maybe we are in agreement after all that it's unclear.

Speaking of not answering the question. 

[fishbane]

3 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Speaking of not answering the question. 

We are in agreement!  If you cannot answer the question "which party gains seats/votes through apportionment due to the distribution of illegal immigrants across all 50 state?" then we are in agreement.  

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, fishbane said:

We are in agreement!  If you cannot answer the question "which party gains seats/votes through apportionment due to the distribution of illegal immigrants across all 50 state?" then we are in agreement.  

Keep saying it. Won’t make it true. 

[scourge165]

17 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

A new law wasn’t needed, a different President solved the problem. 

It was an emergency though, right?

 

Seems weird you'd wait over 2 years when it's an EMERGENCY!

I mean, Trump can't go through the proper channels to implement his tariffs because the trade deficit with the Penguins and Seals is an "emergency," but...you're really defending a Presidential Candidate stopping his party from passing a bill THEY thought was a good bill.

Is that really your position?

[fishbane]

2 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Keep saying it. Won’t make it true. 

Keep not answering the question - it only supports my assertion that it's unclear which party benefits through apportionment from illegal immigration.  If that were untrue then you should be able to answer the question.  Yet you cannot answer that question.  So... We agree!

[JimmySpeaks]

I love how it’s trump and republicans at fault for shutting down the immigration bill.  Dems didn’t give two $hits about fixing the border until Trump said he was going to base his campaign on it. Dems had control of all three branches for two full years and did absolutely nothing.  Why didn’t they?  Because until it became a 2024 election issue for them they didn’t want it fixed. 

[JimmySpeaks]

17 minutes ago, fishbane said:

Keep not answering the question - it only supports my assertion that it's unclear which party benefits through apportionment from illegal immigration.  If that were untrue then you should be able to answer the question.  Yet you cannot answer that question.  So... We agree!

Define what you mean by unclear and who benefits. Would an extra house seat because of unlawful immigrants be considered a benefit to either party ? 

[Offthemat]

7 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

Is that really your position?

The bill you’re touting would have allowed 4k+ illegals per day to enter, till today, and beyond.  Trump wasn’t against it for a political benefit, he, and a majority of conservatives were against it because it was the wrong thing to do, and they voiced their opinion loudly. Lankford even voted against it.  It was a Mitch McConnell bill.  Now it’s solved, proving it never had to, or should have, happened.  

[scourge165]

2 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The bill you’re touting would have allowed 4k+ illegals per day to enter, till today, and beyond.  Trump wasn’t against it for a political benefit, he, and a majority of conservatives were against it because it was the wrong thing to do, and they voiced their opinion loudly. Lankford even voted against it.  It was a Mitch McConnell bill.  Now it’s solved, proving it never had to, or should have, happened.  

I don't even need to spend time on this one. I've seen so many people just blindly repeat that, I have this one ready to go. 

The bill would NOT have allowed 4K+ "illegals" per day to enter.

 

No, the immigration bill proposed under President Biden did not permit 4,000 people to enter the U.S. daily. In fact, the bill aimed to restrict asylum access and tighten border controls when migrant encounters reached certain thresholds.verifythis.com+2politico.com+2en.wikipedia.org+2

Specifically, the bipartisan Senate bill included a "border emergency authority" that would have been mandatorily activated if unauthorized border encounters averaged 5,000 per day over seven consecutive days or hit 8,500 in a single day. Once triggered, this authority would have allowed the Department of Homeland Security to bar most migrants from seeking asylum, effectively turning them away without processing their claims. nypost.com+9factcheck.org+9newsweek.com+9politifact.com+1poynter.org+1

Additionally, the bill provided discretionary authority to activate these restrictions if encounters averaged 4,000 per day over a week. wusa9.com

It's important to note that "encounters" refer to instances where border officials stop individuals attempting to enter the U.S., not the number of people allowed into the country. Therefore, the claim that the bill would have allowed 4,000 people to enter daily is misleading. politifact.com+1politifact.com+1

The bill faced opposition and did not pass in the House, with critics arguing it either went too far or not far enough in addressing immigration concerns.

[scourge165]

6 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

The bill you’re touting would have allowed 4k+ illegals per day to enter, till today, and beyond.  Trump wasn’t against it for a political benefit, he, and a majority of conservatives were against it because it was the wrong thing to do, and they voiced their opinion loudly. Lankford even voted against it.  It was a Mitch McConnell bill.  Now it’s solved, proving it never had to, or should have, happened.  

As for Lankford, also just blatant bull$hit;

Lankford was threatened(according to him) and said he voted against the bill HE and the REPUBLICANS wrote because it'd become a "political prop." 

It was NOT a Mitch McConnell bill, it was a Republican bill, a James Lankford Bill. 

 

 

This was about Trump being able to run on the border, nothing more, nothing less. 

 

Quote

 

Lankford criticized this stance, suggesting that Trump's opposition was politically motivated to maintain the border crisis as a campaign issue. He remarked, "Obviously a chaotic border is helpful to him in the process," implying that resolving the issue could diminish a key point in Trump's political narrative. yahoo.com

The senator also revealed that a prominent conservative commentator threatened to "destroy" him if he pursued the bill during an election year, emphasizing the intense pressure from within his party. Lankford noted, "I had a popular commentator... tell me flat out, 'If you try to move a bill that solves the border crisis during this presidential [election] year, I will do whatever I can to destroy you.'" independent.co.uk+1en.wikipedia.org+1

Ultimately, the bill failed to advance in the Senate, largely due to opposition from Trump and his allies. Lankford's experience underscores the challenges of bipartisan policymaking in a highly polarized political environment, where party loyalty and electoral considerations often overshadow legislative efforts.

 

 

[JimmySpeaks]

11 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

I don't even need to spend time on this one. I've seen so many people just blindly repeat that, I have this one ready to go. 

The bill would NOT have allowed 4K+ "illegals" per day to enter.

 

No, the immigration bill proposed under President Biden did not permit 4,000 people to enter the U.S. daily. In fact, the bill aimed to restrict asylum access and tighten border controls when migrant encounters reached certain thresholds.verifythis.com+2politico.com+2en.wikipedia.org+2

Specifically, the bipartisan Senate bill included a "border emergency authority" that would have been mandatorily activated if unauthorized border encounters averaged 5,000 per day over seven consecutive days or hit 8,500 in a single day. Once triggered, this authority would have allowed the Department of Homeland Security to bar most migrants from seeking asylum, effectively turning them away without processing their claims. nypost.com+9factcheck.org+9newsweek.com+9politifact.com+1poynter.org+1

Additionally, the bill provided discretionary authority to activate these restrictions if encounters averaged 4,000 per day over a week. wusa9.com

It's important to note that "encounters" refer to instances where border officials stop individuals attempting to enter the U.S., not the number of people allowed into the country. Therefore, the claim that the bill would have allowed 4,000 people to enter daily is misleading. politifact.com+1politifact.com+1

The bill faced opposition and did not pass in the House, with critics arguing it either went too far or not far enough in addressing immigration concerns.

Then why didn’t Dems implement it in Bidens first two years when they controlled the White House, the house and the Senate???? Would have been easy to do 

 

EDIT: Question stolen from X (formerly twitter for those that still call it that years later) 

Edited June 4 by JimmySpeaks

[Offthemat]

5 minutes ago, scourge165 said:

It was NOT a Mitch McConnell bill, it was a Republican bill, a James Lankford Bill. 

McConnell appointed Lankford so he could stay out of the limelight.  And yes, Lankford was threatened, and continues to be in hot water for his re-election chances.  Again, we didn’t need a bill, we just needed a new president.  And now it’s been solved.  Not 4000, more like 4.  

[fishbane]

49 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Define what you mean by unclear and who benefits. Would an extra house seat because of unlawful immigrants be considered a benefit to either party ? 

The number of seats is capped so there isn't really aren't "extra" seats.  It's how  the seats get distributed could change. For a state to gain a seat due to the population of illegal immigrants in that state another state would lose a seat because of a lack of of illegal immigrants.  You'd have to look at the political make up of the state and gaining the seat vs the state losing a seat to try and determine which party benefits. 

Current apportionment is ~750,000 people = 1 house seat.  Every state has illegal immigrants but only a few have enough to equal a house seat.  A couple different organization we through this analysis for the 2020 census which gets apportioned and redistricted for elections starting in 2022.  Here is the Pew analysis from 2020.

 

[JimmySpeaks]

31 minutes ago, fishbane said:

The number of seats is capped so there isn't really aren't "extra" seats.  It's how  the seats get distributed could change. For a state to gain a seat due to the population of illegal immigrants in that state another state would lose a seat because of a lack of of illegal immigrants.  You'd have to look at the political make up of the state and gaining the seat vs the state losing a seat to try and determine which party benefits. 

Current apportionment is ~750,000 people = 1 house seat.  Every state has illegal immigrants but only a few have enough to equal a house seat.  A couple different organization we through this analysis for the 2020 census which gets apportioned and redistricted for elections starting in 2022.  Here is the Pew analysis from 2020.

 

 

[fishbane]

17 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

 

There are differences based on the estimates for number of illegal immigrants in each state.  So since you disagree that it's unclear which party benefits through apportionment from this, which party benefits and how much?

[Caveira]

Just now, fishbane said:

There are differences based on the estimates for number of illegal immigrants in each state.  So since you disagree that it's unclear which party benefits through apportionment from this, which party benefits and how much?

If you read it…. it says it’s +1 seat likely for Ds.  

[fishbane]

9 minutes ago, Caveira said:

If you read it…. it says it’s +1 seat likely for Ds.  

Oh back to the burner account.  Sure possibly Democrats gained 1 seat in the last apportionment which all hinges on whether there are more illegal immigrants in NY or Florida.  Doesnt seem all that clear to me that there was any benefit.

But was this really a plan by the Democrats coming to fruition to steal a seat?  This data is from the 2020 census. When did these illegal immigrants get here?  Can't really blame Biden's administration.

 

Edited June 4 by fishbane

[fishbane]

15 minutes ago, Caveira said:

If you read it…. it says it’s +1 seat likely for Ds.  

I also read the article where you found that figure.  Here is the last paragraph you may have missed.

"We have avoided using terms like “replacement theory,” “racism,” and “xenophobia” to describe the views of Elon Musk and others who have been promoting the view that illegal immigration is a deliberate plot to dilute red state power, though we could have. But we are not avoiding the word “wrong.” Their analysis and their conclusions about illegal immigration and apportionment are simply wrong."

[Paul158]

2 hours ago, Offthemat said:

McConnell appointed Lankford so he could stay out of the limelight.  And yes, Lankford was threatened, and continues to be in hot water for his re-election chances.  Again, we didn’t need a bill, we just needed a new president.  And now it’s been solved.  Not 4000, more like 4.  

Quote

 

I'm afraid you are using too much common sense for this particular thread.