Maryland Senate passes bill to allow illegal migrants buy health insurance!

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"And what will happen differently then?"

Really?

When people are NOT happy with what their elected officials do, they vote for somebody else the next election.

You are talking about MARYLAND. There will be no change in the relative numbers in the Legislature. If anything it will become even more "Progressive".

There is no one in either Chamber any longer to act as a brake to the more unrealistic-but-will-be-adopted legislation.

[bufflove]

Originally Posted by westsideboy

C'mon man. If you really think that I have "pretended" to not support Trump for almost 8 years now to keep up appearances on C-D, I don't know what to tell you.

You know the original bill WAS funding for Ukraine.
You know the border component was added to TRY and placate GOP congressman
You know the combo bill failed both because too many GOP congressman will not vote for any more Ukraine aid

and because

You know the 5,000 per day or 4,000 over 7 days is a threshold that would have to be activated before the President could act..........Congress proposed a bill now that would create Legislative law about how and when the Executive Branch could "shut down" the border. Common sense this is a preemptive attempt to limit a GOP president from attempting what Trump tried. Your "fact checkers" say this is a good thing because courts blocked many of his actions. Common sense says allowing about 1.4M people coming over the border every year before Executive action can be triggered isn't a solution, but a handcuff.

Some of the bill would have been useful and I support, like more agents, processing centers, etc., but then again, give me a clean bill with just these elements and we will see what happens.What's stopping it other than my premise?......neither party will propose a clean bill that could be passed, nothing to gain and lots to lose from anything that gets 60 Senators, the President, and a majority of the House to approve........both ends of the spectrum would be furiously unsatisfied with their own party rather than attacking the other.

Yup, Johnson went and did, it was a clean bill, there was one for Israel, one for Ukraine, and both have enough support to get the needed votes. Whether I agree or disagree, THAT is how you get legislation passed.

You're right, I should have just said "Republican POTUS" instead of Trump. My intention was not to imply your support for Trump specifically.

This issue has been in the news the last couple days now that Ukraine funding has gotten through the House without any of the border security sweeteners initially secured by GOP Senate leadership. Republican members are absolutely tearing into Greene and the Freedom Caucus for squandering the opportunity. Freedom Caucus members in turn are tearing into the "Uniparty" and Speaker Johnson. The speakership might be vacated for the second time in the same term. I've never seen a party so utterly dysfunctional for such an extended period of time.

[robertbrianbush]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

"How did this happen ?

This what you get when you elect liberal dems.

Their endgame is to let them VOTE!

There is absolutely no instance of the Dems attempting to do this. That is rightwing propaganda.

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by robertbrianbush

There is absolutely no instance of the Dems attempting to do this. That is rightwing propaganda.

I can pretty much guarantee that it wasn't Republicans who voted to allow non-citizen voting in Maryland, DC and elsewhere.

https://takomaparkmd.gov/newsletter/...n-takoma-park/

https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitt..._United_States

https://www.democracydocket.com/news...s-in-maryland/

[westsideboy]

Originally Posted by bufflove

You're right, I should have just said "Republican POTUS" instead of Trump. My intention was not to imply your support for Trump specifically.

This issue has been in the news the last couple days now that Ukraine funding has gotten through the House without any of the border security sweeteners initially secured by GOP Senate leadership. Republican members are absolutely tearing into Greene and the Freedom Caucus for squandering the opportunity. Freedom Caucus members in turn are tearing into the "Uniparty" and Speaker Johnson. The speakership might be vacated for the second time in the same term. I've never seen a party so utterly dysfunctional for such an extended period of time.

I guess all I will say is that if you truly believed the Democrats wanted the border to be fixed, why are border security measures "sweetners?" That term would indicate these the extra ICE agents, court employees, detention centers aren't what the Dems really want, but what they would compromise for if $60B in arms funding and legislative limits on Executive power at the border was agreed on by the GOP.

Again, if the Dems wanted to actually get more ICE agents, one clean bill does it and probably quickly, yet it won't happen. Ask yourself why. I know why my party won't agree, both because of the limitations on Exec. power on this issue and the refusal to give Biden a "win" on this issue in an election year. I have some ideas why the Dems won't agree, but I am interested in your opinion first.

And yes, the uniparty that ran Washington from 2000-2012 still has some sway left, especially when it comes to transferring public money to prop up rich people and the corporations they invest in. I don't agree, but it shows how to get a bill passed.

[robertbrianbush]

Originally Posted by robertbrianbush

There is absolutely no instance of the Dems attempting to do this. That is rightwing propaganda.

DC and three or four municipalities? In a country this size? And you've concluded the majority of Dems or the Democratic Party backs this? There isn't a single case of the Dems...meaning the Dem Party ...pushing for ot advocating for illegals to vote

[North Beach Person]

Originally Posted by robertbrianbush

DC and three or four municipalities? In a country this size? And you've concluded the majority of Dems or the Democratic Party backs this? There isn't a single case of the Dems...meaning the Dem Party ...pushing for ot advocating for illegals to vote

I made no claim that all Democrats did anything. You, however, made the claim that none had supported non-citizen voting and that it was right-wing propaganda.

And it's ten Maryland jurisdictions that allow it. San Francisco and Oakland also allow it in some circumstances.
https://www.verifythis.com/article/n...5-1490093a5968

Maryland has a long history of allowing non-residents to vote where they own property but don't live. That was thrown out after a lawsuit about forty years ago but it still took several jurisdictions a couple decades to codify it in their local election laws.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by North Beach Person

You are talking about MARYLAND. There will be no change in the relative numbers in the Legislature. If anything it will become even more "Progressive".

There is no one in either Chamber any longer to act as a brake to the more unrealistic-but-will-be-adopted legislation.

Probably right.

Which is 1 reason I moved out 20 some years ago.

[bufflove]

Originally Posted by westsideboy

I guess all I will say is that if you truly believed the Democrats wanted the border to be fixed, why are border security measures "sweetners?" That term would indicate these the extra ICE agents, court employees, detention centers aren't what the Dems really want, but what they would compromise for if $60B in arms funding and legislative limits on Executive power at the border was agreed on by the GOP.

Again, if the Dems wanted to actually get more ICE agents, one clean bill does it and probably quickly, yet it won't happen. Ask yourself why. I know why my party won't agree, both because of the limitations on Exec. power on this issue and the refusal to give Biden a "win" on this issue in an election year. I have some ideas why the Dems won't agree, but I am interested in your opinion first.

And yes, the uniparty that ran Washington from 2000-2012 still has some sway left, especially when it comes to transferring public money to prop up rich people and the corporations they invest in. I don't agree, but it shows how to get a bill passed.

Democrats and Republicans certainly differ on the details, of course. Hence Republicans (correctly) felt they could argue for what they view as more favorable terms by requiring domestic and foreign security funding be linked. That's what I mean by sweeteners. Surely Republicans secured billions more towards ICE agents than Democrats would care to spend. Surely Democrats were unable to secure as many green cards for legal immigration as they'd prefer.

I'm not trying to suggest Dems and Reps hold identical views on how to improve the currently broken immigration system. What I do think is that recent history has shown one party in particular has stood in the way of bipartisan reform efforts in the favor of the status quo. If fewer people tried to "both sides" this then maybe there would be more pressure on Republicans to not scuttle agreements.

[westsideboy]

Originally Posted by bufflove

Democrats and Republicans certainly differ on the details, of course. Hence Republicans (correctly) felt they could argue for what they view as more favorable terms by requiring domestic and foreign security funding be linked. That's what I mean by sweeteners. Surely Republicans secured billions more towards ICE agents than Democrats would care to spend. Surely Democrats were unable to secure as many green cards for legal immigration as they'd prefer.

I'm not trying to suggest Dems and Reps hold identical views on how to improve the currently broken immigration system. What I do think is that recent history has shown one party in particular has stood in the way of bipartisan reform efforts in the favor of the status quo. If fewer people tried to "both sides" this then maybe there would be more pressure on Republicans to not scuttle agreements.

I guess the issue with "one-siding" it is ignoring the obvious advantage the Dems have in keeping the status quo too, which is keeping policies on the books and practices going to appeal to their far left wing. Certainly you are aware there is a sizeable DEM voting block that sees all border control and immigration limitation as inherently "racist." Agreeing to any amount of extra ICE agents and detention centers turns these folks off during an election year where Biden and Senate Dems are going to have to get turnout from this wing of his party. People like you that would be willing to compromise aren't likely to sit out if this bill was passed, others would. The low-information but very angry unlikely voter is the target demographic for both parties, and has been since 2016, IMO.

It's a tough year for the Dems with the Israel-Gaza dispute on-going, campus protests; another issues where moderate Dems and their fringe members can't agree.

I'll finish up and give you the last word if you want it, but the bigger evidence for my point isn't just this year, it's been the multiple years when either the GOP or the DEMs have control of the Executive and Legislative Branch, and still don't prioritize the issue.

I genuinely feel that the immigrants, themselves, are being exploited at every turn. Whether it be the Coyotes who make money off trafficking people, businesses who benefit from under the table labor, or political leaders who can scream about "the problem" and then make sure no changes are made, everyone involved is focused on what is in it for them. For as long as I have been alive, it's been a better idea to argue and point fingers than make changes. That's going on 3+ decades now, I've noticed the pattern.