Thread: TRANSGENDER MIGRANT FROM HONDURAS DIES IN U.S. CUSTODY

Originally Posted by Judy

Show me the record. All I see is talk, no action.

You want to check his record, knock yourself out:

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/m...sheet#tabset-2

That bill died in Jeff Session's Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration. Jeff Sessions was Chairman of that Committee with a Republican majority. I know you like digging your own grave, I just don't understand why. Makes no sense.

Originally Posted by MW

You want to check his record, knock yourself out:

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/m...sheet#tabset-2

Thanks.

Originally Posted by Judy

I was referring to legislation we want that he either introduced or co-sponsored and worked to pass.

The information can be found at the link I provided.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/m...sheet#tabset-2

Originally Posted by Judy

That bill died in Jeff Session's Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration. Jeff Sessions was Chairman of that Committee with a Republican majority. I know you like digging your own grave, I just don't understand why. Makes no sense.

There are lots of reasons bills and amendments fail. It's not always cut and dry. Your argument is without details, which makes it extremely weak. So much ado about nothing.

Originally Posted by MW

The information can be found at the link I provided.

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/m...sheet#tabset-2

Yeah, I found it, thanks.

Originally Posted by MW

There are lots of reasons bills and amendments fail. It's not always cut and dry. Your argument is without details, which makes it extremely weak. So much ado about nothing.

Really? Solving immigration isn't "cut and dry"? Wow. What a different tune you're singing now!!

Originally Posted by Judy

Really? Solving immigration isn't "cut and dry"? Wow. What a different tune you're singing now!!

That's not what I said and you know it. What I'm saying is, some bills effectiveness are altered by amendments, some amendments are intended as poison pills, some bills are written to look good overall, yet contain something unsupportable by immigration hardliners. For example, the Goodlatte bill is one such bill. There are many things in the bill that are supportable, however, some hardliners such as most of us here on ALIPAC don't support giving an amnesty or de facto amnesty to anyone, period. Sometimes it can be difficult to judge a persons intent without knowing the specifics of why they voted the way they did.

With all of that said, no, solving our immigration and border security problems aren't always "cut and dry" because there are occasions where different tactics can be used to fix a problem. Heck, I consider all of us that post on the ALIPAC forums as immigration/border security hardliners, however, even we sometimes differ in our ideas on how to approach certain issues. For example, there are many of us that strongly support a border wall and E-Verify, whereas there are some, like yourself for instance, that don't.

Wow!! You're not only singing a new tune, you're dancin' a new jig to go with it!!

Originally Posted by Judy

Wow!! You're not only singing a new tune, you're dancin' a new jig to go with it!!

Be clear in what you're saying or don't expect anyone, me included, to understand you.